Why I rejected theistic evolution

[Assyrian]

You haven't apologized yet.

You are accountable to God for what you say in defiance of His word and you are accountable to me for accusing me of being a deist when in fact, I am just the opposite.

I may have missed it, but has anybody seen where Martyrs refuted Glaudys when she described his pre-programmed nature comment 'deism' or have the creationists just complained about it and not answered her challenge?

 

[mark kennedy]

Oh Mark, do you have to be so bi-partisan? Do you have to make so many false accusations against fellow Christians? Don't you ever believe that someone can at the same time disagree with you and not be a liberal bible-hater?

I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about the philosophy you are passing off as some form of Christianity. Theistic evolutionists follow a predictable and rather shallow pattern of argumentation, the target is personal convictions regarding God as Creator. The thing is, that's all you guys do, more on that later.

Um no out is quite evident that he has not been civil, neither have you been Mark. I know you believe it's some kind of duty of yours to stamp out TE, but your antagonistic words and wilful false witness towards your fellow believers says more about you than out does about them. And for someone who complains about a lack of theology around here you've not shown an awful lot of interest in how I could be aTE not not reject the Bible. But I'm expecting your reply will simply be more of the bi-partisan antagonism for which I used to have you on ignore.

This discussion never had anything to do with you, this has been a study in theistic evolutionist behavior. I don't know if I'm supposed to be angry or hurt or shaken or what but you argument is nothing but personal, inflammatory remarks. Now I have done a couple of dynamite expositions that your fellow evolutionist trampled under foot. Theistic evolution lacks any theology, their focus is exclusively on the convictions of others, that is, anyone who take the Bible literally.

That's what you do everytime, all of you and it's everytime. I asked Martyrs44 to start the thread telling him exactly how it would unfold. No matter what the topic or what he says they will derail the thread hopelessly off topic and it will inevitably degenerate into an endless string of personal attacks.

Scan the latest posts by theistic evolutionists, nothing is on topic, everything is insulting and none of you are even remotely interested in the topic. It happens everytime and everyone of you are into it.

There can only be one reason that you would do this but I'll get into that later.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Philis]

Which means your a theistic evolutionist who's only purpose on these boards is to insult and demean Creationists. I knew you were, now you have admitted it openly. Thanks for that.

No, I have explained my understanding of Genesis 1 to you (or at least given you an idea of what my understanding is). I don't know about evolution because I don't understand the science very well. Understanding the creation account in light of ANE cosmology has nothing to do with evolution, it's what many theologians have understood for many years before Darwin came around.

Maybe the fact that you think "cultural context of theology" is equal to "I accept evolution" is your stumbling block here.

My interests are intellectual not spiritual and there is no reason for Martyr to jump through hoops for you personal amusement.

Are you Martyr? What does YOUR interests have to do with Martyr's interest in answering my question? Interesting.

No your not open minded, you are a skeptic and a critic of the clear meaning of the Scriptures. Theistic evolution is really nothing more the a secular philosophy put in mildly theological terminology, it has no theology of it's own it simply attacks Creationism.

I'm not a TE, I'm a theist, plain and simple. As far as being open minded goes, I've asked those that accept a literal view to explain it to me. I've asked for clarification when I don't understand, and when it seems to not make any sense I've repeatedly given opportunity for you guys to clarify what it means. I haven't pushed my view on you guys and I haven't continually rejected what you've said in order to preach my view. 95% of what I've been posting has been to understand Martyr's perspective, what could I do differently that would make you think I was open minded?

If open minded means I have to accept whatever you tell me then you don't know what it means to be open minded. I've been very open to Martyr's view but he has come to a wall where it seems he can no longer make sense of it.

I suppose he might if there was something to compare it to. What is your view?

Why would you suggest that he might answer it if there is something to compare it to? How can you speak for him? Again, is he a sock puppet of yours?

It seems pretty obvious that you just want a positive statement so you can just take pot shots at it. Creationists typically shun this kind of thing, when they don't respond to you it's because it's against their religion to teach doctrine to someone who tramples it under foot.

I want a positive statement to know what it means to interpret Genesis literally, according to him. Whether or not I can take "pot shots" at it depends on how solid it is. If something that is believed can be very easily criticized, then maybe it should be reconsidered. Making a positive statement so that it's out there for scrutiny can be a very good thing. It means it can be improved upon or even dropped and then he could move on to something more solid.

He's the one who's preached honesty in pretty much every post he's made. All he has to do is say "I can't explain that one yet, I'll have to look into it more." Simply avoiding the message seems to send a different message.

 

[metherion]

Now, I know Martyr has me on ignore, so I shan’t respond to what he says, it’ll be wasted and ignored here.

But, you know what, Mark? Just for fun, I have compiled a list in this thread only of all the attacks and insults you have made, of all the times you claim that the only reason TEs post here is for Darwinist applause, and all the times you claim that all we do is attack and never make any substantial points of our own, as three separate lists. Just for fun.

First, the personal attacks:

Papias doesn’t make sensical arguments.

Are you typing blindfolded because you cannot possible believe that argument made any sense if you actual read it.

Papias doesn’t have points.

It would also be nice if when you make these long quotes if you actually had a point, that would be very helpful.

Papias doesn’t make coherent statements and has a puffed up idea of his own posts.

You haven't made a single coherent statement and yet you parade your argument is if it were irrefutable.

Papias doesn’t make substantive points, and parades around as if he had.

Did you read what you wrote before you posted it or are you doing this blindfolded? Not a single substantive point but you dance in circles as if you had actually addressed a single thing he said.

Papias is a spammer, is a troll, and always HAS been a troll.

Standard Papias spam attack, just keep typing and take a bow. ...it's the same old fallacious rhetoric you have been trolling the boards with since you started posting.

These are only from post #7.

Post #8:
Philis isn’t and hasn’t been open minded, and must have been lying to have claimed so.

Are you seriously going to pretend your being 'open minded' after a post like this?

Papias has never done sound exposition on anything, post #20.

He has never done a sound exposition of the Scriptures or the theological doctrines of his own religion.

All TEs are dishonest about the human/chimpanzee genome similarities, post #23

After years of debate and discussion I can't get them to honestly admit that Human and Chimpanzee DNA is not 98% the same, it's 96% at best

Assyrian has problems with the content of the Bible, instead of the interpretations you hold, post #46

if you can't do that then your problem is not with the construction of the text, your problem is with the content.

From post #50:
Assyrian thinks God can’t do miracles.

Yes, did you ever think God could act in time and space too?

Assyrian usually doesn’t make sense.

As usual, you are making no sense at all.

Assyrian doesn’t bother to consider the meanings of words.

Do you ever take a minute before you post these things to consider what the words you use actually mean?

Assyrian routinely twists verses of the Bible to mean other things.

So far you have taken three verses, twisted their meaning to suite your private interpretation, contradicting the clear meaning of all of them directly.

Assyrian fails almost every Biblical exposition.

Virtually every exposition you attempted here was completely erroneous, does this ever fool anyone?

This one speaks for itself.

How you can be so fatally flawed in your arguments, consistently spouting blatant errors and hopelessly optimistic in your self-appraisal is a miracle of modernist audacity.

From post #129

Assyrian treats Scripture ridiculously.

Your treatment of the Scriptures is simply ridiculous.

Assyrian DOES NOT BELIEVE.

Non literal is just another form of unbelief the way your using it.

Assyrian needs to learn the Scriptures.

You need to learn the Scriptures.

Post #136

ASSYRIAN DOES NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE.

I'm saying that you don't get to dismiss the Word of God as figurative because you don't believe it.

(Oh, and by the way, the Word of God, big ‘W’, is Jesus, John 1:1. You mean the ‘word’ of God, little W. For someone who is so hard on other people over Scripture, one would think you wouldn’t make that mistake, Mark.)

Assyrian can’t/doesn’t actually believe what he is saying.

but you cannot believe the nonsense you are putting out on here

Assyrian tramples doctrines.

I get really tired of seeing you trample essential doctrine under foot

Assyrian mocks Scripture:

I strongly advise caution here because what you are doing has gone beyond childish mockery. You are now ridiculing essential doctrine and one of the clearest expressions of the Gospel in the book of Hebrews. I'm warning you not because I'm offended but because this kind of error can harden your heart beyond repair. Be very careful here, there is more at stake then you can possibly imagine.

Your not struggling with an interpretive challenge, you are mocking the clear meaning of Scripture due to unbelief:

And again, Assyrian mocks Scripture:

most of what you do on here is harmless, meaningless mockery

Assyrian AGAIN DOES NOT BELIEVE:

your problem is that you don't believe what is written so you dismiss whatever you don't believe with regards to redemptive history as figurative

Post #137:
Philis’ only purpose on the board is to attack and demean other Christians:

Which means your a theistic evolutionist who's only purpose on these boards is to insult and demean Creationists. I knew you were, now you have admitted it openly. Thanks for that.

Philis isn’t open minded, is skeptical of the Bible, and has been lying when she said otherwise.

No your not open minded, you are a skeptic and a critic of the clear meaning of the Scriptures.

Philis tramples doctrines under foot:

Creationists typically shun this kind of thing, when they don't respond to you it's because it's against their religion to teach doctrine to someone who tramples it under foot.

Post #138:
TheFijian is a childish mocker

No actually that is childish mockery

AND TheFijian is arrogant, and his arrogance is the reason he posts.

Don't pretend it's his arrogance that motivates you, it's yours.

Post #143:
All TEs are personal attackers and mob like zombies.

where most of them go right to the personal attacks. There is one in every thread, one of them will simply spam as many pseudo-intellectual criticisms as possible while the rest move in like a mob of zombies.

All TEs promote atheism.

but when you get right down to brass tacks the philosophy they are promoting is atheism and it's gone by soooooo many titles

TEs ARE UNBELIEVERS, and oblivious to that fact.

They actually believe that they can take over the institutes of Christian religion and do a better job with it then believers. Most of these guys are oblivious to the real agenda at work which is why I try to be patient with them.

TEs are all trolls.

I could see that you were actually interested in opening up a dialog with them so I wanted to help you beat back the trolls to make room for the substantive discussion.

Second, your claims that the only reason TEs post here is for Darwinist applause and the like:

post #3:

In the Darwinian theater of the mind that gets you a standing ovation

post #20

A big round of applause for gluadys, she preached the fallacious logic of Darwinism with great zeal and unrelenting ad hominem attacks.

Post #143:

The evolutionists are encouraging them to do this and offering them instant credibility for it. They love to recruit and actual believer to front for them

They don't care if it's obvious, all that matters is if there is someone watching they see as much unpleasantness as possible

Post # 147, all TEs do is attack and belittle.

No you were insulting him by any means available, making course condescending criticisms and harsh personal remarks. That's pretty much all you guys have did in this thread and all you do on these boards.

Finally, your claims that TEs only insult and attack:

Post # 20

A big round of applause for gluadys, she preached the fallacious logic of Darwinism with great zeal and unrelenting ad hominem attacks.

All that typing of personal attacks, impeccably fallacious logic, charges of heresy and deception.

the argument need not have any merit as long as it insults a Creationist.

Post #23

Oh that is a mild one, you were just called a deist, a heretic, a liar and a fool. You should see them when they get warmed up.

Post #136

To tell you the truth, I think sometimes you make blatantly false statements just to see if Creationists will go for it. I think you throw that kind of nonsensical, fallacious reasoning out there, off the wall, to run creationists in circles.

Your purpose is not to understand the Scriptures but to waste my time and energy.

Where ever you fallacious logic starts it always goes back to the ad hominem attack that is theistic evolution, you have to hammer the personal convictions of Creationists, that's the whole point.

Post #137:

Which means your a theistic evolutionist who's only purpose on these boards is to insult and demean Creationists. I knew you were, now you have admitted it openly. Thanks for that.

Theistic evolution is really nothing more the a secular philosophy put in mildly theological terminology, it has no theology of it's own it simply attacks Creationism.

Post #138:

No matter where it starts it always ends up with a group of you hurling one insult after another at Creationists. You guys are swirling around him like starving dogs in winter and that is what you always do.

Post #143:

His mantra is that it's figurative, he actually has a fairly unique equivocation fallacy going on where most of them go right to the personal attacks. There is one in every thread, one of them will simply spam as many pseudo-intellectual criticisms as possible while the rest move in like a mob of zombies. Usually the is the kinder gentler one who just happens in to see what the problem is and what they can do to help. Then after being hammered continuously for several pages the Creationist will open up to that person a little

I have done what I can to encourage Creationists to come on here but they will not tolerate the contentious and divisive spirit of these Darwinian tactics.

No you were insulting him by any means available, making course condescending criticisms and harsh personal remarks.

Now, I count that all up, and I see you have made no less than thirty two, yes, 32 personal attacks directed at either specific individuals or TEs in general, including no fewer than six claims of unbelief either in God or in the Bible. I also count 5 claims that the only reason some people post here is for Darwinian applause or similar, and 13 claims that the only things TEs do is personally attack Creationists.

Now, I wonder mark, what would you do if we ACTUALLY SAID, in nearly every post:

mark kennedy doesn’t read his own posts or make sensical arguments.
mark kennedy is a spammer, and is as well as always has been a troll.
mark kennedy is a liar when he claimed he is open minded.
mark kennedy can’t and hasn’t done any sound exposition of the Bible.
mark kennedy is always dishonest.
mark kennedy doesn’t make any sense.
mark kennedy routinely twists the Bible.
mark kennedy fails every time he does Scriptural exposition.
mark kennedy doesn’t believe in the Bible.
mark kennedy doesn’t believe in God.
mark kennedy says things that its obvious he can’t even believe himself.
mark kennedy mocks scripture.
mark kennedy’s only purpose on the board is to mock and belittle TEs.
mark kennedy is a childish mocker.
mark kennedy promotes atheism.

Now, if anyone actually said any of those to you, you’d be livid! You’d be beating your drum as loud as possible, parading the attacks around as vindication of all the attacks you claim have ever happened. You’d holler LOOK I WAS RIGHT, THESE ARE EXACTLY THE ATTACKS I HAVE ALWAYS CLAIMED WERE BEING MADE!

But, somehow, it is perfectly fine for you to constantly say all these things. As a matter of fact, you say these things about us, mark. You attack almost every post. You attack routinely. You have it down so well, you claim that we attack, and that all we do is attack as PART of your attack to try and get others to believe you. But you’re the one making the ad hominems, mark. You’re the one calling us unbelievers. Calling us trolls. Calling us idiots. Calling us incoherent. Calling us dishonest. Go ahead, post the attacks we’ve made, like I’ve posted this.

I actually wrote this before you wrote post #162, but we can add some stuff from that into the mix:

I'm talking about the philosophy you are passing off as some form of Christianity.

So if it needs to be ‘passed off’ as some form of Christianity, it isn’t. So at least TheFijian is not adhering to Christianity.

Theistic evolutionists follow a predictable and rather shallow pattern of argumentation, the target is personal convictions regarding God as Creator. The thing is, that's all you guys do, more on that later.

Again, all TEs do is launch personal attacks, and nothing else.

Theistic evolution lacks any theology, their focus is exclusively on the convictions of others, that is, anyone who take the Bible literally.

TEs have no theology of their own, and only attack other.

Scan the latest posts by theistic evolutionists, nothing is on topic, everything is insulting and none of you are even remotely interested in the topic.

All TEs do nothing but attack and insult and derail.

Hrm, That’s 2 more personal attacks, and three more claims that all TEs do is attack you.

HRM. I think you’re projecting Mark. You constantly assault TEs, yet claim at every turn you’re being attacked, you’re under attack, you only have to deal with attacks, HELP HELP I”M UNDER ATTACK, yet you’re attacking the whole time. You haven’t shown any attacks on you, just claimed to be under assault and made literally DOZENS of attacks on others.

Metherion

 

[Greg1234]

There is a metaphor of being born again

Not Darwinian.

 

[toLiJC]

if God made the light, then it is sure that namely He set its speed, but first He should drove the light to all corners of the universe just instantly, otherwise how it will instantly become light in the universe?!

Genesis 1:3 "God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

in such (a) case, if everything in the nature is set by God, what can be some evolution except something which can not slow the achievement of salvation for eternal life regardless of who or what is the human/soul that is (the) subject of the eternal salvation

 

[Martyrs44]

if God made the light, then it is sure that namely He set its speed, but first He should drove the light to all corners of the universe just instantly, otherwise how it will instantly become light in the universe?!

Genesis 1:3 "God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

in such (a) case, if everything in the nature is set by God, what can be some evolution except something which can not slow the achievement of salvation for eternal life regardless of who or what is the human/soul that is (the) subject of the eternal salvation

Thank you for that. Welcome to the board.

What country are you from?

 

[Martyrs44]

Not Darwinian.

Ditto.

 

[Martyrs44]

Now, I know Martyr has me on ignore, so I shan’t respond to what he says, it’ll be wasted and ignored here.

But, you know what, Mark? Just for fun, I have compiled a list in this thread only of all the attacks and insults you have made, of all the times you claim that the only reason TEs post here is for Darwinist applause, and all the times you claim that all we do is attack and never make any substantial points of our own, as three separate lists. Just for fun.

First, the personal attacks:

Papias doesn’t make sensical arguments.

Papias doesn’t have points.

Papias doesn’t make coherent statements and has a puffed up idea of his own posts.

Papias doesn’t make substantive points, and parades around as if he had.


Papias is a spammer, is a troll, and always HAS been a troll.


These are only from post #7.

Post #8:
Philis isn’t and hasn’t been open minded, and must have been lying to have claimed so.


Papias has never done sound exposition on anything, post #20.


All TEs are dishonest about the human/chimpanzee genome similarities, post #23


Assyrian has problems with the content of the Bible, instead of the interpretations you hold, post #46


From post #50:
Assyrian thinks God can’t do miracles.


Assyrian usually doesn’t make sense.


Assyrian doesn’t bother to consider the meanings of words.



Assyrian routinely twists verses of the Bible to mean other things.


Assyrian fails almost every Biblical exposition.


This one speaks for itself.


From post #129

Assyrian treats Scripture ridiculously.


Assyrian DOES NOT BELIEVE.


Assyrian needs to learn the Scriptures.


Post #136

ASSYRIAN DOES NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE.

(Oh, and by the way, the Word of God, big ‘W’, is Jesus, John 1:1. You mean the ‘word’ of God, little W. For someone who is so hard on other people over Scripture, one would think you wouldn’t make that mistake, Mark.)

Assyrian can’t/doesn’t actually believe what he is saying.


Assyrian tramples doctrines.

Assyrian mocks Scripture:


And again, Assyrian mocks Scripture:


Assyrian AGAIN DOES NOT BELIEVE:


Post #137:
Philis’ only purpose on the board is to attack and demean other Christians:


Philis isn’t open minded, is skeptical of the Bible, and has been lying when she said otherwise.


Philis tramples doctrines under foot:


Post #138:
TheFijian is a childish mocker

AND TheFijian is arrogant, and his arrogance is the reason he posts.


Post #143:
All TEs are personal attackers and mob like zombies.


All TEs promote atheism.


TEs ARE UNBELIEVERS, and oblivious to that fact.


TEs are all trolls.


Second, your claims that the only reason TEs post here is for Darwinist applause and the like:

post #3:


post #20



Post #143:




Post # 147, all TEs do is attack and belittle.



Finally, your claims that TEs only insult and attack:

Post # 20







Post #23


Post #136






Post #137:





Post #138:


Post #143:







Now, I count that all up, and I see you have made no less than thirty two, yes, 32 personal attacks directed at either specific individuals or TEs in general, including no fewer than six claims of unbelief either in God or in the Bible. I also count 5 claims that the only reason some people post here is for Darwinian applause or similar, and 13 claims that the only things TEs do is personally attack Creationists.

Now, I wonder mark, what would you do if we ACTUALLY SAID, in nearly every post:

mark kennedy doesn’t read his own posts or make sensical arguments.
mark kennedy is a spammer, and is as well as always has been a troll.
mark kennedy is a liar when he claimed he is open minded.
mark kennedy can’t and hasn’t done any sound exposition of the Bible.
mark kennedy is always dishonest.
mark kennedy doesn’t make any sense.
mark kennedy routinely twists the Bible.
mark kennedy fails every time he does Scriptural exposition.
mark kennedy doesn’t believe in the Bible.
mark kennedy doesn’t believe in God.
mark kennedy says things that its obvious he can’t even believe himself.
mark kennedy mocks scripture.
mark kennedy’s only purpose on the board is to mock and belittle TEs.
mark kennedy is a childish mocker.
mark kennedy promotes atheism.

Now, if anyone actually said any of those to you, you’d be livid! You’d be beating your drum as loud as possible, parading the attacks around as vindication of all the attacks you claim have ever happened. You’d holler LOOK I WAS RIGHT, THESE ARE EXACTLY THE ATTACKS I HAVE ALWAYS CLAIMED WERE BEING MADE!

But, somehow, it is perfectly fine for you to constantly say all these things. As a matter of fact, you say these things about us, mark. You attack almost every post. You attack routinely. You have it down so well, you claim that we attack, and that all we do is attack as PART of your attack to try and get others to believe you. But you’re the one making the ad hominems, mark. You’re the one calling us unbelievers. Calling us trolls. Calling us idiots. Calling us incoherent. Calling us dishonest. Go ahead, post the attacks we’ve made, like I’ve posted this.

I actually wrote this before you wrote post #162, but we can add some stuff from that into the mix:


So if it needs to be ‘passed off’ as some form of Christianity, it isn’t. So at least TheFijian is not adhering to Christianity.


Again, all TEs do is launch personal attacks, and nothing else.


TEs have no theology of their own, and only attack other.


All TEs do nothing but attack and insult and derail.

Hrm, That’s 2 more personal attacks, and three more claims that all TEs do is attack you.

HRM. I think you’re projecting Mark. You constantly assault TEs, yet claim at every turn you’re being attacked, you’re under attack, you only have to deal with attacks, HELP HELP I”M UNDER ATTACK, yet you’re attacking the whole time. You haven’t shown any attacks on you, just claimed to be under assault and made literally DOZENS of attacks on others.

Metherion

I took Metherion off ignore just long enough to see what he is up to since he hadn't previously offered a single helpful thing on this entire thread...but suddenly he speaks. I was right. He is up to no good and putting down Mark Kennedy. He didn't come on line with us to discuss the Op or my 2nd post with the information/documentation I gave; he came to criticize and nothing more. He is another time waster and not worth answering as far as important subject matter is concerned.

So: he goes back to the ignore box.

 

[gluadys]

You haven't apologized yet.

You are accountable to God for what you say in defiance of His word and you are accountable to me for accusing me of being a deist when in fact, I am just the opposite.

I am prepared to apologize when I have been shown there is something to apologize for. How do I know you are just the opposite when you refuse to clarify the meaning of what you said?

As I said, you have the opportunity, through explaining your intended meaning, of showing how wrong I am.

Why don't you take it?

 

[mark kennedy]

Now, I know Martyr has me on ignore, so I shan’t respond to what he says, it’ll be wasted and ignored here.

But, you know what, Mark? Just for fun, I have compiled a list in this thread only of all the attacks and insults you have made, of all the times you claim that the only reason TEs post here is for Darwinist applause, and all the times you claim that all we do is attack and never make any substantial points of our own, as three separate lists. Just for fun.

Yea, because hurling insults at Creationists for having the audacity for believing Genesis as written is soooo much fun.

First, the personal attacks:
Papias doesn’t make sensical arguments.
Papias doesn’t have points.
Papias doesn’t make coherent statements and has a puffed up idea of his own posts.
Papias doesn’t make substantive points, and parades around as if he had.
Papias is a spammer, is a troll, and always HAS been a troll.

Papias reports that Henry Morris is uneducated, the education he got was from the 30s. This is simply not true. He makes this incoherent rant about gases:

Reasonable ones, like the idea that things that are gases today were gases then. More importantly, if there were a problem with any assumption, then why would the methods agree with each other, even the non-radioactive ones? I asked that before and you didn't answer.

The statement makes some vague reference to 'gases' and 'reasonable ones'. He complains about assumptions which is as close as he came to responding to the OP. Not once does he address the substance of the false assumptions involved in radiometric dating. His purpose in these threads like you purpose in this post is to insult Creationists. That's all you do and the only reason you do it is because Creationists believe the Bible as written. Now I can't tell what you believe about the rest of the Bible because you never talk about it. I have no idea what your theology is because you never discuss it. I honestly know nothing about you except that you hate Creationists for believing the book of Genesis as it is written.

Assyrian has been refuted a dozen times on Adam being figurative. Philis has done the same thing, citing the Hebrew usage rather then the New Testament definition from Strong's that makes it clear that Adam is the first parent of humanity. The word 'figure' in Romans 5 for Adam Assyrian insists means a figure of speech and yet it's used of Timothy who is clearly a real person.

I reached out to Assyrian and literally spent hours trying to show him from the Scriptures what they are actually saying. His mantra of them being figurative is a constant drone with nothing supporting his statements except him repeating these chants over and over again.

There were very few actual issues raised and the OP remains untouched because what the OP says is irrelevant to theistic evolutionists. Their only reason for posting here is to ridicule Christians with the audacity to believe the book of Genesis as written to be an accurate account of our origins.

I'm not fishing for this, that's all you have posted.

HRM. I think you’re projecting Mark. You constantly assault TEs, yet claim at every turn you’re being attacked, you’re under attack, you only have to deal with attacks, HELP HELP I”M UNDER ATTACK, yet you’re attacking the whole time. You haven’t shown any attacks on you, just claimed to be under assault and made literally DOZENS of attacks on others.

Metherion

Nonsense, all you did in this post is pour out as many insults as you can muster. I have reached out to Papias and debated him formally in order to discuss RCC theology with regards to origins. Not because I hate him or I come on here to insult him but so he could be shown that Rome has never rejected Creatonism, it in fact, maintains what can only be described as an Intelligent Design position.

I am not offended by these attacks, I know where they are coming from and it's not Christian conviction. I asked Martyr to start a new thread on the subject of why he is a Creationist. I told him it did not matter what it was because he could expect the topic to be derailed. Then the thread will be dragged down to an endless deluge of insults because it always is.

I assured him I would stay with the thread until the last troll had fallen and I will. He is putting you guys on block for the same reason Creationists shun these discussions for the most part. They do it because the Scriptures teach to mark those among you who are divisive and contentious and have nothing to do with them.

The purpose of the thread was to show him what your tactics are. If you want to make a liar out of me try getting the thread back on topic, stop the endless string of insults and speak to this man as a brother in Christ rather then a sworn enemy.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[gluadys]

There are none.

Thank you for admitting there are no verses of scripture that support evolution or billions of years. Thank you for admitting that us eisigesis.

It is not eisegesis unless we claim the bible does reference evolution or deep time preceding human existence. That is not a TE claim.

I believe the bible is literally true and accurate. I believe that Genesis 1-11 is historical not figurative. I believe that salvation lies only in Jesus Christ.

I agree with the third sentence.
Why do you believe that Genesis 1-11 is historical?

What do you mean by "literally" true?
I ask because many people use different definitions of "literal".
I prefer the most literal meaning of "literal" i.e. the word or phrase is intended to be understood in the plainest, most common sense without any implication that it is also intended to be a) actual or b) historical. While the word is sometimes used with these additional meanings, those are really different issues.

The bible also doesn't mention every kind of animal that was created, so are you saying that no animal was created?

No, but it is interesting that no animal unknown to the ancient Hebrews is ever mentioned (e.g. "kangaroo" "reindeer" "armadillo".)
However, we know from other sources that these animals were known to the people indigenous to those regions, so not mentioning them in scripture does not imply they were not created.

What it implies is that the biblical writers did not know of them.

And that was my point. The biblical writers did not know of many other things either. They did not know the earth is a sphere (that was discovered by the Greeks after the completion of the Old Testament.) They did not know that the earth is in motion. (That was only confirmed by the Copernican revolution in astronomy.) They did not know of great continents far to the west of the Atlantic ocean, nor of the peoples of the South Pacific. And they did not know of many things discovered by scientific study in the last 3-4 hundred years, such as the existence of bacteria or quarks, or genomes.

So, why would we expect a biblical reference to any of these any more than to kangaroos or Eskimos?

And just as the lack of a biblical reference to kangaroos does not mean there are no kangaroos, so the lack of a biblical reference to bacteria or to fossils or to DNA does not mean there was no ancient earth or that animals of ancient times may have been ancestors to those of today.

It just means the biblical writers did not know of these things so they did not discuss them.

My point is, that the bible doesn't directly talk of "modern" things, but that doesn't mean we should ignore them.

Exactly my point as well. We can't ignore these things just because they are relatively recent discoveries about the world God made.

So we have two points of agreement here:

1. There are things the biblical writers never speak of because they never knew of them.

2. We do know of them and can't ignore them.

Where do we go from here?

However what you and others are doing is looking at what "modern" science is saying and trying to read that into the scriptures.

That is where you misunderstand us. We are not claiming these things should be read into scripture.

We are saying that sometimes new discoveries force us to examine our assumptions about the meaning of scripture.

The clearest example of that historically is the way we learned to re-assess the traditional interpretations of verses about how the sun moves and the earth stands still after the scientific confirmation that relative to each other, it is the earth that moves and the sun that stands still.

Some in the church at that time insisted very vociferously that we must adhere to the literal meaning of the scripture as being the true meaning.

How do you justify the church's decision not to do that, and instead accept the ideas of the new astronomy and change the view of what the scriptural passages mean?

What would you say if tomorrow scientists said they found absolute proof of a young earth, and it became a universal concensus?

I would say "Hey, what a surprise! Isn't that marvellous? The person who figured that out is a shoo-in for next year's Nobel Prize in (geology/astrophysics/biochemistry--take your pick)."

Would you then abandon your faith in billions of years or your faith in science?

Interestingly I would abandon my "faith" (not at all the correct term here) in billions of years because of my confidence (again "faith" is not the correct term here) in science to correct itself.

You see science is constantly having to refine and change its ideas

Exactly. That is its strength. It has the resilience to refine, even reject, its theories in the light of new evidence.

I certainly would not have confidence in science if it insisted on sticking with theories (like "phlogiston" or "ether" or "humours") which have been shown to be false.

That is a strength which theology can learn from science---not to be bound by traditional theories and interpretations when the evidence shows them to be wrong.

We actually have a historical record of doing that. We no longer adhere to a Ptolemaic or ANE view of the structure of the cosmos. We no longer justify from scripture the enslavement of our fellow human beings. We no longer treat women as chattels owned by the male authorities in their families or condemn a young woman who has been raped to marriage with her rapist.

Why should we not continue in that practice of revising various interpretations of scripture when it comes to the discovery of deep space, deep time and evolution? Not for the purpose of writing these things into scripture. (No one has gone back to remove the laws about slaves or women from the bible or to expunge references to the sun running its course around the earth, so there is no reason to change the text of scripture to put in an ancient age either.) But for the purpose of re-affirming that the great and timeless truths of scripture like creation and redemption apply no matter what we discover beyond the knowledge base of the biblical writers.


I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.



P.S. Thank you for responding with great civility. And for providing a substantive response. It is very refreshing in the context of this thread.

 

[Martyrs44]

I am prepared to apologize when I have been shown there is something to apologize for. How do I know you are just the opposite when you refuse to clarify the meaning of what you said?

As I said, you have the opportunity, through explaining your intended meaning, of showing how wrong I am.

Why don't you take it?

I don't have to clarify anything. I already did so. YOU KNOW that I am a six-day creationist who believes in the direct, personal intervention of God in virtually all matters in this world. But a 'deist' is someone who, by definition has (quote): the belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. (The Free Dictionary). You knew this before you made your charge against me but you said it anyway.

Like I said; I already quoted this and you deliberately ignored it. Your personal dishonesty in this matters and others related to chemical evolution/biological evolution/cosmic evolution is so far off the mark and even your own comrades brought this matter out with the very same cosmic evolution illustration I brought out (Remember: 'From the Big Bang to Humankind'?) and yet you have the audacity to cling to your fairytale notions on the matter.

To think I am wasting any more time on you is irksome to me.

Lord, give me some sincere searcher after the truth of your divine creation. In Jesus name, amen.

 

[Metal Minister]

gluadys
You'll have to give me time to respond...I keep running into the problem of differentiating posts between their authors...that and the great deal of information we can discuss here...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[metherion]

Yea, because hurling insults at Creationists for having the audacity for believing Genesis as written is soooo much fun.

Really? So saying ‘here is a list of attacks you have made’ is attacking you for believing Genesis? “Here is a list of attacks you have made” has nothing to do with Genesis, your belief in it, and is not an attack but a list of what you have said.

Papias reports that Henry Morris is uneducated, the education he got was from the 30s. This is simply not true. He makes this incoherent rant about gases:
...
Reasonable ones, like the idea that things that are gases today were gases then. More importantly, if there were a problem with any assumption, then why would the methods agree with each other, even the non-radioactive ones? I asked that before and you didn't answer.

Mm hm. The rant is incoherent? “The idea that things that are gases today were gases then.” Sounds like another way of saying ‘physical laws and constants haven’t changed.’
“If there were a problem with any assumption, then why would the methods agree with each other, even the non radio-active ones”? Really? That’s completely coherent. If assumptions had problems, then the methods based on differing flawed assumptions would not agree. Since they agree, the assumptions must either not have problems, or all have the exact same problem that makes them all give the exact same wrong time in every case. That’s not incoherent at all.

And so, we have Papais being mistaken about Henry Morris’ non-biology education past the 30s means that Papias is a troll, always has been a troll, never brings up any points, has a puffed up idea of his own points, and cannot make coherent statements. Yes. Totally warranted, not an attack on Papias’ character in the least. Good thing we have you to show what behavior that ISN”T attacking looks like.

Not once does he address the substance of the false assumptions involved in radiometric dating.

Well, here are three links. And if you don’t like that it’s talk origins, you can go to the sources linked at the bottom. You’ll even notice that some of the things they are refuting are from Morris.

CD001: Geochronometry and closed systems
CD002: Geochronology and initial conditions
CD004: Cosmic rays and radiometric decay rates

There.

His purpose in these threads like you purpose in this post is to insult Creationists. That's all you do and the only reason you do it is because Creationists believe the Bible as written.

Uh huh. So the only reason Papias and I have EVER come to this forum is to insult Creationists. NEVER in the years we have been here have we ever tried to have an actual conversation, done any sort of actual theological talk, done any sort of respectful scientific thought, EVER on this board. The ONLY reason we ever post in threads like this is to insult you and other YECs over Genesis. You REALLY believe that? I’m seriously curious if you honestly think that. You keep saying it over and over.

Now I can't tell what you believe about the rest of the Bible because you never talk about it. I have no idea what your theology is because you never discuss it.

Well, I’m Catholic. That should tell you a lot. You also might not have encountered a lot because this is the creation v evolution subforum. Surprise, surprise, not much else comes here.

I honestly know nothing about you except that you hate Creationists for believing the book of Genesis as it is written.

Actually, no, you don’t even know that. I don’t hate creationists. I hate what some creationists have done to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] science, and how many hundreds of thousands of people they’ve turned off of science, and how many millions of man-hours actual scientists have to waste in pointless court battles and debates and defenses against lies and all that jazz. But I don’t hate the people that do it. I don’t hate that people believe YEC. I hate that it so often comes out as attacking actual science.

Assyrian has been refuted a dozen times on Adam being figurative. Philis has done the same thing, citing the Hebrew usage rather then the New Testament definition from Strong's that makes it clear that Adam is the first parent of humanity. The word 'figure' in Romans 5 for Adam Assyrian insists means a figure of speech and yet it's used of Timothy who is clearly a real person.

Uh huh. And your refutations are so clear that all of Christendom should go by them as absolute truth, or are the refutations that reflect your way of thinking about it, that have convinced you personally? I’m pretty sure it’s the latter. Otherwise, all of Christendom would already accept it.

And that does NOT make Assyrian:
not a Christian
a disbeliever in the Bible
someone who thinks God cannot do miracles
Someone who never makes sense
someone who actively mocks Scripture

And then, again:

Their only reason for posting here is to ridicule Christians

Actually, mark, looking by the sheer number of attacks you’ve listed and posted, it looks like YOU are the one out to attack TEs in all sorts of outrageous ways. Are they attacks if they come from your mouth, or only the mouths of others?

Nonsense, all you did in this post is pour out as many insults as you can muster.

I poured out YOUR insults, in a list. If you see that as pouring out insults, maybe you should look at your own posts.

I have reached out to Papias and debated him formally in order to discuss RCC theology with regards to origins. Not because I hate him or I come on here to insult him but so he could be shown that Rome has never rejected Creatonism, it in fact, maintains what can only be described as an Intelligent Design position.

Actually, given the outcome of that debate, you are wrong in claiming that. And still are.

Then the thread will be dragged down to an endless deluge of insults because it always is.

Usually your insults.

I assured him I would stay with the thread until the last troll had fallen and I will.

Uh huh. So now we are all trolls. But CALLING everyone who isn’t on ‘your side’ a troll isn’t an attack, right?

If you want to make a liar out of me try getting the thread back on topic, stop the endless string of insults and speak to this man as a brother in Christ rather then a sworn enemy.

Here is the million dollar question:
What could I say to get it back on topic that would NOT be an attack to you?
Now, here is something that *should* be on topic:

No matter what the method, we cannot know by observation or even experimentation what the conditions of the so-called 'early earth' were according to evolution theory.

Okay. So what do you propose changed? When did it change? Did decay rates suddenly change? The speed of light? What governs chemistry reactions? The nuclear forces? The gravity constant? When did it change? And since it all changed, there must be a ‘zero day’ that is the last day everything was the same. What is that ‘zero day?’

You seem to be proposing (if I understand correctly) that pretty much all the laws of physics and everything changed at some unknown point in the past. What evidence do you draw that from?

. in light of this there have been countless numbers of rock samples dated in the range of millions of years that were later discovered to come out of volcanoes of the last few hundred years including the ones from Mount St. Helens.

Actually, this has been discussed before. I could post Youtube videos if you’d like, or find some actual links, or summarize either videos or links AND post the videos/links as well. Whichever you prefer. You know, assuming Mark decides this is not-attack-y enough to pass it on to you, since you’ve ignored me again, and all that jazz. The MAIN IDEA, however, if that lave is not uniform when it flows up, and may carry chunk of minerals that do not melt at lava temperatures, and dating those chunks provides different dates than the actual lava because it wasn’t in the same state as the lava at the same time as the lava. Also, most dating methods have a minimum age. For instance, C-14 dating generally is not accurate for things less than 500 years old. Dating a 20 year old lava flow, now closer to 30, with something meant to go a thousand times or more further into the past that C-14 seems like using a bathroom scale to measure how much saffron you should put into an 8 fl oz bowl of soup.

I would also talk about the ‘appearance of age’. I agree with Papias that this is deceptive, and no different from Omphalos. You say God doesn’t lie in the Bible, but how would apparent age NOT be lying in Creation? God made both, both must be true, correct?

And also, as you say,

The truth is that if God 'spake and it was done'...a la 'Let there by light and there was light' then anything He made would have to have the appearance of age.

WHY would it have the appearance of age? You say that it must, that it would have to have the appearance of age. Why would it have to have the appearance of age?

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

I don't have to clarify anything. I already did so. YOU KNOW that I am a six-day creationist who believes in the direct, personal intervention of God in virtually all matters in this world.

No, until you told us right this minute, I did NOT know that you believe in the direct, personal intervention of God in virtualy all matters in this world.

Thank you for the clarification.

Clearly that is not the position of a Deist and I offer my apologies for the suggestion that you might be tending in that direction.


Now, may I ask you to explain a bit more about how God interacts in virtually all matters in this world, especially on a daily basis?

How does "pre-programming" fit into a natural world where God is personally directing its affairs?

What conveys to us that God is acting in the growth of a stalk of wheat from its seed--given that embryologists can practically trace every generation of cell development from the moment of fertilization to the moment of maturity? IOW, there is nothing there which one would ordinarily term a "supernatural" event. It is not out of the ordinary like walking on water or instantaneously healing a man born blind.

Yet, since we are not Deists, but Christians, we agree that God is involved in this process from beginning to end, right?

So where does the idea of pre-programming come from?

Sorry to keep at this, but I am genuinely puzzled and that is why I seek clarification.

 

[gluadys]

gluadys
You'll have to give me time to respond...I keep running into the problem of differentiating posts between their authors...that and the great deal of information we can discuss here...

May God Richly Bless You! MM

No problem. This is a forum, not a chat board. Instant responses not required. And a well-thought out answer is much to be preferred.

 

[Philis]

Did Martyrs44 put me on ignore too? If so that's odd because if I'm the only one really giving him a chance to explain his view and I haven't made any personal attacks, then what kind of conversation is he looking for?

Maybe someone can quote this in case I'm on ignore. Just looking for an honest answer about how the stars are below the ice dome. Trying to give him a chance to make sense of his literal interpretation of scripture.

 

[Martyrs44]

gluadys - No, until you told us right this minute, I did NOT know that you believe in the direct, personal intervention of God in virtualy all matters in this world.

Do you really think I buy that?

Quote from post # 19: "The brain is a pretty fast computer...biologically speaking and it also is the creation by God...not by nature. Nature doesn't create and nature doesn't design (program!)anything, but the Lord does. Now...how would you call that last statement 'deism'?"

You were already informed.

Thank you for the clarification.

You didn't need clarification. You have been on this board for a much longer time than I have and posted perhaps hundreds if not thousands of messages to six day creationsts and you therefore know better than to make such a foolish charge against any of us.

Clearly that is not the position of a Deist and I offer my apologies for the suggestion that you might be tending in that direction.

I am an easy forgiver but I don't believe you. Just how stupid do you think I am?

I want this to stop now. I would rather help other posters who are seeking the truth about God's creation; not someone whose critical thinking skills are ruined by neo-Darwinian thought and pretends to not remember high points of conflict about important points already discussed.

So feel free to discuss things with Mark or one of the other creationists.

 

[Philis]

I would rather help other posters who are seeking the truth about God's creation; not someone whose critical thinking skills are ruined by neo-Darwinian thought

Well I'm not an evolutionist and I've been asking you to explain the literal reading of Genesis 1, so why aren't you helping me find out the truth of what it literally says?