Robert the Pilegrim
Senior Veteran
If a photon can be both wave and particle then the Kingdom of Heaven can be both Vineyard and Wheat field!stumpjumper said:
Good post by the way.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If a photon can be both wave and particle then the Kingdom of Heaven can be both Vineyard and Wheat field!stumpjumper said:Absolutely. Do you believe that the parables are records of real events? Is the Kingdom of Heaven a Vineyard or a Wheat field? Which one it can't be both.
I was under the impression that the medieval/early modern theologians had decided that Adam did indeed have a navel. Anybody know for sure? (and what their reasoning was?)shernren said:The easiest way to distinguish this is in Adam. Adam was created a typical adult male human. He had an appearance of age. Yet as far as our theology holds he did not have a navel. This is because he never underwent the event of having an umbilical cord. That is appearance of history. If Adam had appearance of history he would have had a navel although he never had an umbilical cord.
Critias said:I think trying to assert whether Adam had a navel or not is a fruitless arguement. No one will ever know until Jesus comes.
this is the first time on this forum i've seen anyone actually express the argument correctly, kudoes. a navel is NOT part of our genetic inheritance, it is a scar, historical incident, an artifact of a development.This is because he never underwent the event of having an umbilical cord. That is appearance of history.
if your referring to YEers it may be on biblical grounds, but that is not the only reason Christians, or even some people in general dismiss it.I am wondering if Young Earth Creationists dismiss evolution on scientific grounds or solely because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Yes, and your point would be?Critias said:I think trying to assert whether Adam had a navel or not is a fruitless arguement. No one will ever know until Jesus comes.
FWIW I am far more interested in knowing the historical arguments than in knowing the fact.vossler said:I'm sorry but this is rather comical; you folks are discussing, with a fair amount of importance, whether or not Adam had a naval.
rmwilliamsll said:then you miss the significance of the various arguments.
....
Critias said:I know the point of the arguement Richard. Tell me, can you say with absolute certainty on this issue either way without anyone ever observing this - seeing Adam for themself? And if you cannot, why is it so important that we take a side on it?
Is God really that impotent that He cannot create a man with or without a belly button. And if He did either way, are you going to call God into question on this? If not, what's the point?
rmwilliamsll said:i have no epistemology that can deliver pronouncements of absolute certainty. nor does the route to warrant or justify an omphalos solution have access to Adam, this side of the Final Judgment. nor do many things i believe in the domain of theology: baptism, communion, church government, eschatology etc, all issues which i take a stand and do not have absolute certainty regarding the correctness of this stand. so i can merely add omphalos to the ever increasing list.
God can do whatever is not inconsistent with His character. And that is the argument about Adam's navel. one route leads to a trickster and deceptive god, a direct contradiction to the Biblical God. and that is the point. working through the issues does illuminate what we think about God and how He works or could work in this world.
the question of why to take sides or why to investigate the problem is the big question of why engage in this creation-evolution-design debate at all? the simple answer to which is that this investigation shines light on the crucial issues facing the church in the last hundred years and how it interacts with the greater culture surrounding it, particularly in the area of epistemology.
....
The elite scientists who control what is called science is obvious biased againest God. These scientists would quickly use intelligent design as evidence to prove alien in space. As long as the evidence fits into their views they will jump on it in a heart beat and are exactly the oppiside if the evidence goes againest their bias views. These scientists want to find life outside of Earth very badly but they are not looking for God.stumpjumper said:Allright everybody let's start over.
Can the Creationists who have posted in this thread answer for me these questions:
1.) That science is biased against God. (ie. I mean that all or even most scientists want to disprove God not just use methodological naturalism).
To me the Bible is the word of God.2.) That the Bible is the Word of God and should be given more weight than other forms of Divine Revelation.
I've no reason to believe the earth is or isn't 4.5 billion years old. From what I've read in science, this evidence is extreme weak. You know we are talking about billions here. The gives us a little idea of millions of year: if land in America continues to erode at it's current level it estimated the whole nation will be eroded away in 10 million years. Of course scientist tries their best to explain how it possible for a continent to remain longer than 10 millions year yet this is trying to fit the evidence into their view these continents been here for over 200 million years. Maybe they explanation convice you but I see them very weak. They basicly accept the evidence their fit their view then throw out/ignore that which doesn't.3.) That you actually have any evidence that the earth can not be 4.5 billion years old.
I believe it's possible the planet is older than 10,000 years but very doubtfully it's billions.4.) That you actually have any scientific or other reason to believe that the earth can not be more than 10,000 years old.
Do you accept the literal interpretation of Darwinism? I notice people who literal believes in Darwinism/ Evolution and Big Bang will hammer those who choose take the scriptures literally. I do accept the Bible is literal the word of God and trust is more than modern day myths like Darwinism.5.) That you actually have any real reason to believe that Genesis 1-11 should and must be interpreted literally.
6.) That you have any reason to believe that belief in Jesus or witnessing the Christian faith requires a literal interpretation of the critical parts of Genesis.
7.) That you have any real reason that a Christian should not accept the modern scientific understanding of our world.
It also says that the Sun moves across the sky, that pi = 3, that the sky is like a tent, that the earth is set upon pillars.Critias said:Yes, the Bible does state God created in six days.
In that case, does the Bible state that Adam has a naval? Does it state he doesn't?
I've no reason to believe the earth is or isn't 4.5 billion years old. From what I've read in science, this evidence is extreme weak. You know we are talking about billions here. The gives us a little idea of millions of year: if land in America continues to erode at it's current level it estimated the whole nation will be eroded away in 10 million years. Of course scientist tries their best to explain how it possible for a continent to remain longer than 10 millions year yet this is trying to fit the evidence into their view these continents been here for over 200 million years. Maybe they explanation convice you but I see them very weak. They basicly accept the evidence their fit their view then throw out/ignore that which doesn't.
Robert the Pilegrim said:It also says that the Sun moves across the sky,
Robert the Pilegrim said:that pi = 3,
Robert the Pilegrim said:that the sky is like a tent,
Robert the Pilegrim said:that the earth is set upon pillars.
rmwilliamsll said:well, it doesn't tell us what color he was.
wait a minute, yes it does he was red. or maybe just red haired, since it is a complex pun, i'm not sure which.
nor does it tell us how tall he was, nor how much he weighed. nor eye color, and those things are important enough to be on my driver's license and were the first things i was taught to remember about a suspect in police training. yet God didn't say anything about them.
so what?
.....
shernren said:And plate tectonics is weak how?
if land in America continues to erode at it's current level it estimated the whole nation will be eroded away in 10 million years. Of course scientist tries their best to explain how it possible for a continent to remain longer than 10 millions year yet this is trying to fit the evidence into their view these continents been here for over 200 million years. Maybe they explanation convice you but I see them very weak.
You know that there is other theories for polar reversal. Measuring distances that land moves now is measuring how fast land moves now. Right now the the Arctic Ridge moves 6 times as slow as Easter island, imagine if you can, how different that number would be on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth.
Not when there is still geologic columns on the surface of even mountains. I remember reading a few months ago where scientist are starting to admit all our mountains are very young compare to their time table. So it true some mountains has upthrust that equals or surplus the erosion rate (which is higher on mountains) yet still have geologic layers on the top of these mountains. Of course they are still using milions but I've notice the mountains and the Grand Canyon are getting younger and younger.shernren said:I was responding to Smidlee who'd said:
And the answer is of course that by the theory of plate tectonics the upthrust of land under America is sufficient to allow it to remain for over 200 million years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?