Why do creationists redefine and/or make up words out-of-context?

[Speedwell]

I still do not know what your purposes is, unless, as you say, from the political angle, you want to subvert Christian belief.

If I were a big supporter of prayer in public schools, what you might have to say about it is irrelevant, and will not make one whit of difference to me, unless we are discussing the Constitution, an area where I am professionally qualified to comment

I spent years in the so called "religious forums" a very raucous place indeed. It is quite confrontational, and the new atheists there aren't concerned about politics, they continually crash Christian discussions to jeer, belittle and demean, that is their modus operandi.

In an online forum format I do not trust any new atheist to have any other motive.

Sorry, but that is my experience with very many of you over the years.

I came to the CHRISTIAN FORUM to escape that, but you are here too.

So, since theology ( the study of God) holds no interest for you, and I see very few political discussions, if any, about imposing by law Christianity on others, I will continue to be wary of your motives, and wonder why you are here.

Make no mistake, I am happy to engage you on any issue, but I will strongly react to YOU statements. They almost always in this format are a form of personal attack and uncalled for.

I was very clear that I was using "you" in the collective sense. I was also very clear that I am here to contest the idea of Fundamentalist Protestant theology being imposed on public school children--whoever is trying to do it.

So now why don't you explain your personal attack on me?

 

[HitchSlap]

Sorry, but you don't determine what I have to believe.

There are many Christians who view Genesis 1 and related verses as purely allegorical

Their are old earth creationists who do not accept it as written.

I think you are finding dogma when it isn't there.

Anything you have to say about the alleged singularity is ad hoc and and an attempt to deny that science sometimes operates on faith too.

Your faith in unproven scientific concepts is necessary for your world view, not mine.

You are free as well to believe what fulfills your need.

If information were provided to you that satisfactorily proved there was no god, would you become atheist?

 

[Chinchilla]

If information were provided to you that satisfactorily proved there was no god, would you become atheist?

Would you worship Yah and bow down on knees before him if Christianity was true ?
Isaiah 45:23
I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

 

[HitchSlap]

Would you worship Yah and bow down on knees before him if Christianity was true ?
Isaiah 45:23

Nope. I'm an autonomous person who doesn't feel the need to worship anything.

 

[Chinchilla]

Nope. I'm an autonomous person who doesn't feel the need to worship anything.

So from your point of view what is your motivation to discuss and argue with Christians if you alredy made your mind not depending on arguments that they provide but on your assumptions ?

Let's say you manage to "evangelise" (for lack of better word ) and turned Christians into Atheists . What would it profit you in the long run ? According to that point of view we would both just stop existing like we did not exist before we were born . It does not profit anything to make anybody believe anything since we all end up in the same way we just waste time which we have limited for arguing instead of enjoying life that we have left.

From Christian point of view I understand that these people defend thier faith believing that they have eternal life so according to that this life is nothing compared to eternity so they are focused on preaching and getting people to have eternal life just as they have .

But from Atheistic point of view I don't see any motivation behind evangelising somebody into Atheism , If somebody is happy being Hindu , Buddah , Muslim or Christian just let him enjoy his life and move on with your own life and do as you please. I see no motivation to argue and prove a point . The only motivation that could be possible is when you feel dopamine in your brain for feeling smart or for winning argument . Is this the thing that motivates you to argue with others about your beliefs ?

 

[Jimmy D]

It would be. But most people don't "believe" in it, they just accept it provisionally as a reasonable hypothesis.

Bingo!

 

[AV1611VET]

So from your point of view what is your motivation to discuss and argue with Christians if you alredy made your mind not depending on arguments that they provide but on your assumptions ?

I can't answer for HitchSlap, but I'm going to try anyway, and he can correct me if I'm wrong.

According to Hitch, he was a Christian at one time.

This means he experienced the following:

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

But somewhere along the way, and for what reason I don't know, he turned his back on all that.

A couple of guesses as to why are:

1. He invested his money in academia that teaches too much secularism.

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

2. He didn't beware Paul's warning about concentrating too much on the philosophical/physical realm.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

3. He fell victim to Paul's warning not to embrace evolution and professed himself Homo sapiens.

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

So now, from his point of view as both a man knowledgeable in the ways of both Christianity and Atheism, he knows a little more what he's talking about than someone who was never saved in the first place.

 

[HitchSlap]

So from your point of view what is your motivation to discuss and argue with Christians if you alredy made your mind not depending on arguments that they provide but on your assumptions ?

Let's say you manage to "evangelise" (for lack of better word ) and turned Christians into Atheists . What would it profit you in the long run ? According to that point of view we would both just stop existing like we did not exist before we were born . It does not profit anything to make anybody believe anything since we all end up in the same way we just waste time which we have limited for arguing instead of enjoying life that we have left.

From Christian point of view I understand that these people defend thier faith believing that they have eternal life so according to that this life is nothing compared to eternity so they are focused on preaching and getting people to have eternal life just as they have .

But from Atheistic point of view I don't see any motivation behind evangelising somebody into Atheism , If somebody is happy being Hindu , Buddah , Muslim or Christian just let him enjoy his life and move on with your own life and do as you please. I see no motivation to argue and prove a point . The only motivation that could be possible is when you feel dopamine in your brain for feeling smart or for winning argument . Is this the thing that motivates you to argue with others about your beliefs ?

A world in which everyone uses logic and reason is preferable to a world guided by superstitious thinking.

 

[Herman Hedning]

But from Atheistic point of view I don't see any motivation behind evangelising somebody into Atheism , If somebody is happy being Hindu , Buddah , Muslim or Christian just let him enjoy his life and move on with your own life and do as you please. I see no motivation to argue and prove a point . The only motivation that could be possible is when you feel dopamine in your brain for feeling smart or for winning argument . Is this the thing that motivates you to argue with others about your beliefs ?

The same argument goes the other way too, right? There is no reason for a christian to try converting a muslim, a hindu, or an atheist to christianity. Just let them be happy in their own beliefs/philosophies.

 

[AV1611VET]

The same argument goes the other way too, right? There is no reason for a christian to try converting a muslim, a hindu, or an atheist to christianity. Just let them be happy in their own beliefs/philosophies.

Then why did Jesus give us the Great Commission?

 

[Speedwell]

The same argument goes the other way too, right? There is no reason for a christian to try converting a muslim, a hindu, or an atheist to christianity. Just let them be happy in their own beliefs/philosophies.

Creationist Christians rarely attempt that. Most of their effort seems to be devoted to converting other Christians to biblical literalism, or denouncing them for rejecting it.

 

[Chinchilla]

The same argument goes the other way too, right? There is no reason for a christian to try converting a muslim, a hindu, or an atheist to christianity. Just let them be happy in their own beliefs/philosophies.

Well actually there is , let's take for example Muslims.

Quran says that the day of resurrection won't come untill everybody embrace Islam or enemies of Islam are killed - especially Jews and Christians . So they have motivation to convert people into thier religion.

Same goes for Christian , they believe that the ONLY way to heaven is through Christ that means every other religion is false and is leading to hell , knowing the terror of Lord ( 2 Corinthians 5:11) they evangelize men so they can avoid such damnation and Christians themselfes won't be punished for not preaching the gospel.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then why did Jesus give us the Great Commission?

A witness for some, a warning to the rest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationist Christians rarely attempt that. Most of their effort seems to be devoted to converting other Christians to biblical literalism, or denouncing them for rejecting it.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Seeing as Scripture explicitly embraces creationism ... and implicitly denounces evolution ... which one should we denounce with respect to the above passage?

 

[Astrophile]

Sigh, I must have been down this road 200 times. You can never know anything about God, but what he chooses to reveal. Why, Since God created the universe, he is outside the universe, you can never leave the universe. It is expanding so fast, even if you could travel at the fastest possible speed, just below the speed of light, you would never approach the margin of the universe. You are stuck right here. So, your question has absolutely no possible answer.

First, you are begging the question; you are making statements about God without giving any reason why we should accept them. Second, whether the universe began naturally or supernaturally, and whether the first living things were created by a god or originated by a natural process from complex organic compounds, has no bearing on whether stars and planets were formed by the collapse of interstellar clouds, or on whether all primates, including ourselves, are descended from a common ancestor.

 

[pitabread]

A witness for some, a warning to the rest.

But if it turns out Christianity isn't the "true'" theology, then it becomes moot. At which point you'd best hope you haven't ticked off some other supreme deity for following the incorrect belief system.

 

[HitchSlap]

I can't answer for HitchSlap,

I bet you're going to try though.

but I'm going to try anyway,

My prophecy came true!

and he can correct me if I'm wrong.

Was there any doubt?

According to Hitch, he was a Christian at one time.

So far, so good.

This means he experienced the following:

Well that didn't take long. It would be more accurate to say, we believe[d] we experienced the following. But I know that accuracy really isn't your thing.

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

But somewhere along the way, and for what reason I don't know, he turned his back on all that.

I read the bible one too many times, I guess.

A couple of guesses as to why are:

1. He invested his money in academia that teaches too much secularism.

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

2. He didn't beware Paul's warning about concentrating too much on the philosophical/physical realm.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

3. He fell victim to Paul's warning not to embrace evolution and professed himself Homo sapiens.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be fools, they became Christians.

This, or my need to know outweighs my need to believe.

So now, from his point of view as both a man knowledgeable in the ways of both Christianity and Atheism, he knows a little more what he's talking about than someone who was never saved in the first place.

From my point of view, I'm able to accept things as they are.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But if it turns out Christianity isn't the "true'" theology, then it becomes moot. At which point you'd best hope you haven't ticked off some other supreme deity for following the incorrect belief system.

Christianity is working so well for me that I can't imagine it being incorrect.

 

[Astrophile]

Really? The big bang is predicated on a singularity, a singularity that cannot be defined or be "seen" by the principles of physics because, physics breaks down at about one unit in Planck time in retrograde.

No, it isn't; you have got things the wrong way round. The 'Big Bang' cosmology was deduced from the recession of the galaxies, the abundances of the isotopes of hydrogen, helium and lithium, and the cosmic microwave background, all of which provide evidence for the expansion of the universe from an early high-temperature, high-density state. The singularity is a mathematical fiction, not a physical reality; it exists because present knowledge of the laws of physics breaks down before the Planck time, not because there were no laws of physics before that time.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you for your explanation. You aren't contending that this replicating RNA is a living organism, are you ?

It's debatable, considering that said protocells don't regulate their own division, and as a result "daughter protocells" don't end up with consistent genetic material (RNA). That's why they are called protocells and not cells.

Do any organisms exist that are Solely RNA based ?

Viruses. There are also viruses capable of going back and forth between the two, and as a result these are thought to be the reason for the transition of the early living cells from being RNA based to being DNA based. Remnant viral genes for the transition remained in these surviving "cells" and converted them. Note that DNA and RNA are extremely similar in terms of chemical makeup, but that any cell that did transition to DNA would have an extreme advantage in the fact that DNA is far more stable.

That life on this planet started with RNA as the genetic material would explain why modern cells need to transcribe DNA segments into RNA in order to produce proteins rather than just using a DNA based system.

Is RNA solely the worker in relation to DNA " instruction", or does it have information to both direct and operate an organism?

-_- in modern cells, no, but RNA has the capacity to run basic functions by itself. That is, it can produce proteins from itself (and even act as one) and replicate.

But again, the DNA instructs nothing. It's more like a template than a blueprint, since the complementary RNA bases get stuck to it until the catalysts separate when they hit a spot they can't stay bonded to, and since the RNA is partly "stuck" to the complex, it separates when it does. It's all chemistry.

All DNA exists for is to be transcribed. It doesn't directly do anything, it is all up to RNA and the proteins produced from the RNA. 100%, if DNA wasn't significantly more stable than RNA, living cells wouldn't use it. It just makes for more consistent RNA than RNA by itself would.

Is there any evidence that these replicating permeable lipid bubbles and self replicating RNA can combine to form a living cell?

Why would they need to combine with each other necessarily? Most organelles in a cell are just additional lipid bilayer folds with differences in protein and RNA present, and in the case of bacteria, that would apply to all of them. Lipid bilayers fold in sometimes, and proteins would get caught in them. That's all there is to organelle formation. Fyi, ribosomes are made of RNA.

Considering how simple bacteria are, these protocells are just a more stable genome and cell wall away from being very simple bacteria.

Is there any evidence that this self replicating RNA can evolve into DNA ? Thanks !

Retroviruses, though they convert their RNA into DNA directly. These sorts of viruses often leave bits and pieces of themselves behind in the host genome.