Why Young Earthers should be more honest

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 10:48 AM Nathan Poe said this in Post #176

I previously said Darwin didn't invent evolution, he only offered a mechanism for how it happened. It doesn't surprise me; the Babylonians were pretty advanced people for their time. So their idea was unpopular and cast aside; truth is never a popularity contest.

Thousands of years later, along comes Darwin, who based his ideas not on the Babylonians, but on the scientific minds I mentioned earlier, and comes up with with a roughly similar idea that can be supported -- with empirical evidence: evolution by natural selection.

Say it with me: By Natural Selection. A theory that may not have meshed with a word-for-word interpretation of thousand-year-old translated texts, but worked just fine with the evidence in front of his eyes... and ours.



That day has come and gone. I'll choose honest evolution over a creation made to look like evolution. And I choose human reason over 5000 years of opressive dogma. I'm funny that way.

If you can't resist adding stuff to my quotes, then reframe from posting them.

Do you know what soothsayers are?

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 03:23 AM Arikay said this in Post #174

I was trying to show you different points of view. Both from my point of view (that lieing to support your theory is still lieing) and how christians can still be christians and except evolution. Since you want to try to turn it towards me and attack me, again, im not going to respond to the rest of this post.

Now you know how it feels on the recieving end of stick. But you have to understand. Every action has a reaction that includes the words you use here. Don't expect to "personally attack" someone and expect them to laugh it off. The part about lying is in your opinion. Though there is a lot that has been said here I do not believe. I have not gone as far as to call someone a liar! I understand that everyone one has a right to believe what they want. But when someone attacks my beliefs by posting threads or just posting in a thread to that effect I will respond. Just as you will. Calling people names shows an immaturity. You should reframe from doing this.

 

[Arikay]

A reply was sent in PM form, As I think it could best be said in private and not in public.

Yesterday at 11:55 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #182 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686612#post686612)

Now you know how it feels on the recieving end of stick. But you have to understand. Every action has a reaction that includes the words you use here. Don't expect to "personally attack" someone and expect them to laugh it off. The part about lying is in your opinion. Though there is a lot that has been said here I do not believe. I have not gone as far as to call someone a liar! I understand that everyone one has a right to believe what they want. But when someone attacks my beliefs by posting threads or just posting in a thread to that effect I will respond. Just as you will. Calling people names shows an immaturity. You should reframe from doing this.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 02:39 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #181 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686602#post686602)

If you can't resist adding stuff to my quotes, then reframe [sic] from posting them.

Do you know what soothsayers are?

Soothsayer: a prophet or fortuneteller.

I wasn't adding to your posts, I was correcting them. [sic], the Latin term for "thus,"when added to a quote, indicates that there is an error in the original text, but the person citing the quote is aware of the error, and is preserving it as is.

You see, in citing sources, it is of utmost importance to cite it accurately. Any alterations without brackets, and a person could be accused of quoting out-of-context, or worse, outright quote-mining.

btw, the word is "refrain."

 

[Smilin]

28th February 2003 at 07:43 PM Micaiah said this in Post #135 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682509#post682509)Genesis is Scripture and provides a historical record of real people and real events. Therefore when Scripture asserts that Creation took place in 6 days, and we are given genealogies in Scripture that enable us to estimate the earth is some 6000 years old, not millions of years old, then that is what I believe to be truth.

I've asked John as well as others for a timeline of the 6000 year old Earth assertion, with no response. To satisfy my own curiosity, and for my review, can you supply the timeline you claim? I've yet to receive one from anyone who references the YEC's claim of a 6,000 year old Earth.

Are you referring back to Ussher's original timeline... or is there a newer version?

28th February 2003 at 07:43 PM Micaiah said this in Post #135 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682509#post682509)
I don't take the criticism of dishonesty personally. Your argument is with the word of God, not those who trust the word of God.

I do not argue with God. When I've observed 25 million year old cave formations, as well as Radioactive decay rates which date the Earth to 4.5 billion years old, I know God is a God of truth... not a God of deceit. If God were a God of deception, then I could not trust any other promise he's made. Since I know this isn't the case, and I can view and repeat the scientific findings..... I'm still waiting to review the detailed timeline associated with the geneologies that are referred to, but never offered up on this forum for review.

I trust God as well, yet I do not take Genesis any more literal than I take Revelations which is totally symbolic.

Respectfully,
Smilin

 

[Smilin]

28th February 2003 at 06:04 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #133 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=682348#post682348)

I had to pick up my wife from work. Also I am tired of being insulted. You people make me very sad, because your just not willing to put out any effort at all. I can not help people that are not willing to do anything to help themselves.

First, disputing your personal positions is not meant to be insulting. That's the nature of debate, and learning is a painful process.

Second, you disappoint many of us when we ask for references, clarifications, proofs, etc. etc. on many claims you've made, without you responding. I'll give you as much effort as you give me.

Third, how can you help anyone without proving your points? and responding to questions posed to you?

Respectfully,
Smilin

 

[Smilin]

1st March 2003 at 03:57 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #151 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683301#post683301)

People who choose not to believe in God just like Darwin did jumped on his band wagon and at the chance to say to the believers

You didn't read what Darwin published. He was a believer, and referred to God in his publication.

 

[Smilin]

1st March 2003 at 04:42 AM Tau said this in Post #157 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=683331#post683331)

I see your point, but I'm not too sure that Darwin intended for people to stop believing. Certainly, it is possible to accept evolution and still believe in God, as demonstrated by the many people who accept theistic evolution.

Of course,
How else can you explain the continuously emerging new breeds of animals through selective reproduction as well as the 77,000+/- new species of plants through hybrid speciation???????

We owe a majority of our current food supply to the Science of Evolution.

 

[Tau]

Ikester, I think you missed my last response in this thread. I'd mentioned theistic evolution, and you were just telling me about how God had made certain rules for his followers to follow. I'd like to know what rules you were thinking of, and where in the Bible they come from. Thanks.

 

[Tau]

Today at 06:01 PM Smilin said this in Post #188 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=687224#post687224)

Of course,
How else can you explain the continuously emerging new breeds of animals through selective reproduction as well as the 77,000+/- new species of plants through hybrid speciation???????

We owe a majority of our current food supply to the Science of Evolution.

I know, I know. I accept the theory of evolution. Ikester does not, and he brought up the possibility of the theory being created to stop people from believing. That's what I was answering.

 

[gentu]

Today at 07:34 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #180 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=686597#post686597)

If creation and the spiritual part are supposed to be seperate, then why is it mentioned in the same book(Bible)?

They aren't necessarily separate. They are separate but related, as the Old and New Testaments are both separate and related. As Jesus has taught us with the dietary rules mentioned in the Old Testament, not all of the Old Testament is to be taken literally. Jesus preached the message of Salvation which is contained in the New Testament.

And I keep being told here that evolution is the study of creation. This is because Darwin happens to mention God and creator in his book. Like I said before and I will repeat. Darwin, when he wrote his book had to factor into it how it was gonna be accepted by a mainly christain country. So he had to write it so it did not sound so much like an attack on the christain faith. Putting God and the word creator in his book accomplished this. In order for his ideas to even have a chance to survive this had to be done. I truley believe that if he did not do this his ideas would not have even hit the printing presses.

I actually wasn't talking about Darwin at all, I was referring to the fact that God created the Heavens and the Earth. Therefore, studying the Earth and the Universe it is contained in amounts to studying God's creation, no?