P
PartyAnimal
Guest
Well yes, that's what I should have said. Ultimately, we interpret the world as well as the bible. Both are god given so neither can be wrong. The issue is how we interpret each.
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)
- Thread starter Metal Minister
- Start date
Well yes, that's what I should have said. Ultimately, we interpret the world as well as the bible. Both are god given so neither can be wrong. The issue is how we interpret each.
progmonk said:
He doesn't just discuss day age, but if I remember correctly he discusses your pov as well. I found it fascinating.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Just read the introduction and I can hardly say I'm impressed with his tone, the way he does a "verse-by-verse" exposition from the contents leaves a lot to be desired, to me 2:1-3 is the pivotal paragraph of the narrative and he doesn't address it. Though I will pick up the book.
Upvote
0
"Origin of Life Prize - Life Origins - Abiogenesis"
$1 million for a person who (based on realistic parameters) comes up with a COMPUTER model of INFORMATION arising spontaneously. No they dont have to show in real life monomers forming polymers, polymers of nucleic acids arranged in such a way as to contain functional information coding for correct codons to code for functional proteins. Or lipids forming, or sugars forming, or ribosomes, mitochondria, cell membranes, nucleus, protein channels etc forming. A COMPUTER model.
They put this bold null hypothesis out there (which a child knows) so as to spark interest in their challenge and for a clear target to aim for.
“No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
"After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided."
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"The one-time Prize will be paid to the winner(s) as a twenty-year annuity in hopes of discouraging theorists' immediate retirement from productive careers. The annuity consists of $50,000.00 (U.S.) per year for twenty consecutive years, totalling one million dollars in payments."[/FONT][/FONT]
It will never happen but they said what they said so someone doesnt do it then run off to a Hawiian island forever and quite researching after theyve won there $million lol.
Also Neodarwinian delusion is not a THEORY. Hypothesis-observation-theory. Theorizing how something works can only come about after it has actually been OBSERVED.
In case someone thinks Milers amino acids= "The first steps of life!" Racemic, not a single dipeptide. On a scale of 0 to 100 of achieving "life" this would be 0.
Progmonk i am interested please say-where did you receive your indoctrination?
$1 million for a person who (based on realistic parameters) comes up with a COMPUTER model of INFORMATION arising spontaneously. No they dont have to show in real life monomers forming polymers, polymers of nucleic acids arranged in such a way as to contain functional information coding for correct codons to code for functional proteins. Or lipids forming, or sugars forming, or ribosomes, mitochondria, cell membranes, nucleus, protein channels etc forming. A COMPUTER model.
They put this bold null hypothesis out there (which a child knows) so as to spark interest in their challenge and for a clear target to aim for.
“No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”
"After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided."
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"The one-time Prize will be paid to the winner(s) as a twenty-year annuity in hopes of discouraging theorists' immediate retirement from productive careers. The annuity consists of $50,000.00 (U.S.) per year for twenty consecutive years, totalling one million dollars in payments."[/FONT][/FONT]
It will never happen but they said what they said so someone doesnt do it then run off to a Hawiian island forever and quite researching after theyve won there $million lol.
Also Neodarwinian delusion is not a THEORY. Hypothesis-observation-theory. Theorizing how something works can only come about after it has actually been OBSERVED.
In case someone thinks Milers amino acids= "The first steps of life!" Racemic, not a single dipeptide. On a scale of 0 to 100 of achieving "life" this would be 0.
Progmonk i am interested please say-where did you receive your indoctrination?
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Jinx, you are presupposing that from a theistic evolution perspective God is not involved in the world, this is incorrect, God is involved, God is supremely in control, to remove God from the process is to end up with nothing, nothing would happen, we wouldn't be here discussing this. So from this perspective anything arising spontaneously is fundamentally a misconception and is conflating atheistic abiogenesis with theistic abiogenesis.
Upvote
0
If you ask a question i answer it.
"Progmonk i am interested please say-where did you receive your indoctrination? "
Also please see the creation resource thread to see what happens when Dawkins gets asked a question about his lifes doctrine (origin of species).
"Progmonk i am interested please say-where did you receive your indoctrination? "
Also please see the creation resource thread to see what happens when Dawkins gets asked a question about his lifes doctrine (origin of species).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Oh, I'm sorry no need to get uppity.
I have spent the past 5-6 years studying this area, not exclusively as I have been also interested in moralism, defense and spiritual combat against cults, and my academic studies in Computer Science. Before this I was an adamant YEC, I have recommended the youtube series to you that helped me to understand evolution, the book from the theological side that I heartily recommend is John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One. Other books I have read on the topic are: The Dance Between Science & Faith, Thank God for Evolution, God, the Big Bang & Bunsen-Burning Issues, and have watched quite a lot of youtube videos from the BioLogos foundation. So if you want to narrow it down to one particular place the BioLogos foundation, especially the Anglican theologians and scientists involved.
I could care less about Dawkins, he's not really a proper representative for what I believe, bring me the same sort of accusations about Rev. Dr. Alister Mcgrath and then I'd be willing to make more of a fuss.
Upvote
0
progmonk said:
This sounds quite interesting...what is it about? I love to learn about new things, and I can honestly say I've never heard anyone bring this up before.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
It's about being able to recognise cults not just from the perspective that they deny some aspect of the trinity but also from a self-destructive level and the need for spiritual leaders to be accountable to their flock, the world does not want to see another Jonestown or Manson, so one of the things I have been focusing on is studying ways of combating this, basically in my mind it comes down to not only fully understanding the nature of God from a biblical perspective, keeping our leaders accountable and being able to recognise key patterns of speech that give away spiritual bondage and in love helping those trapped to try and escape.
Groups that I am currently praying for:
Westboro Baptist Church
Divine Truth
The Sacred Name Movement
And of course the Mormons and JWs
Last edited:
Upvote
0
progmonk said:
Yes, I know quite a few jw's and I pray for them CONSTANTLY! One in particular I call a friend, and its funny...he was born into a jw home, and when I ask him about some of the tenants he believes, he's happy to tell me, but can't back them up very well when I lovingly confront him with its contradictions. I will say, it fills my heart with hope though, because every time we have a discussion, and I bring up one if these points, I can see the wheel begin to turn in his mind! Is there any good literature out there that I may be able to use myself, or could direct people to, if I want to do the same as you are?
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin is a good read, James White writes a lot on this sort of thing and as he suggests, it's always a good idea to read and understand their literature to know what exactly you are arguing against, in fact I think this is a good general rule for all apologetics.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Just a couple of things, first of all, all Christian are creationists:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
(The Nicene Creed)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:1-6)
I hope Darwinians realise the harm they are causing. I'm sure they really believe their world view but when you want to substitute established theology with naturalistic assumptions it distracts people from the things of Christ.
If we as a group continually show a refusal to accept God as Creator what people supposed to think of the new birth, resurrection and God's creation at the end of the age?
Indeed!
Have a nice day,
Mark
Upvote
0
Progmonk, do you know much about the author of "thank God for evolution?" You may find this interesting: apparently he used to be an evangelical, but turned the "evolution evangelical" shortly before marrying his atheist wife. Not that that matters, but I thought it might help establish the frame of mind he has because now he claims that any part of Christianity that donesn't conform to evolution should be interpreted in a way that it does regardless of what it actually means. The actuall quote is:
'Of necessity, this evolutionary effort will also mean that some of the teachings [of Christianity/the Bible] will be translated almost beyond recognition, just as our skin is so unlike that of our scaly reptilian ancestors. Then, too, some passages will have so little utility that they will disappear, just as the primate tail was lost within our lineage of apes.
( http://creation.com/evolutions-evangelist)
May God Richly Bless You! MM
'Of necessity, this evolutionary effort will also mean that some of the teachings [of Christianity/the Bible] will be translated almost beyond recognition, just as our skin is so unlike that of our scaly reptilian ancestors. Then, too, some passages will have so little utility that they will disappear, just as the primate tail was lost within our lineage of apes.
( http://creation.com/evolutions-evangelist)
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Yes I am aware of that aspect of Michael Dowd's spirituality, his work is a bit more universalist than what I am comfortable with, but as Jinx was after all influences I've drawn on as a part of my "indoctrination" I would have thought it would have been dishonest to not include him. As I said in that post the main place that can probably line up most with my personal beliefs is the BioLogos foundation, especially the Anglicans that are a part of it, however I am enjoying their series of essays in conversation with the SBC that you might be interested in if you want a more Baptist view, here are some links to the ones I've read so far:
Southern Baptist Voices: An Ongoing Series | BioLogos
Southern Baptist Voices: Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral? | BioLogos
There appear to be many more, as well, I'm also enjoying their series on what it means to be in the Image of God, probably mostly because the articles that I have read address disability, which is something I haven't really thought about when it comes to that doctrine.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
progmonk said:
I'll have to look those over, thank you!
I wondered if you knew only because he was listed among a group considered a cult like we were talking about before.
May God Richly Bless You! MM
Last edited:
Upvote
0
P
PartyAnimal
Guest
Mark Kennedy said:
That was really smart. The way you turned what I said around. Making it look like they were of equal value. Only I never said that creation and science were at odds. You implied it in your reversal of my words making my point correct. You said "refusal to accept God as Creator". I said refusal to accept established scientific theories which I explained come from god. Thanks for proving my point.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
