Your favorite "Anti-evolutionist"

[EnemyPartyII]

So what else we got? Hey, the bible! Or....nothing, possibly but fairy tales.

Why is the Bible more accurate than the ancient creation myths of any other culture? They were written down about the same time, yet vary drastically.

What about the fossil record? IT was "written" down at least as Genesis was occuring, if not way before, and it disagrees with the Genesis account too.

So, to say its the Bible or nothing is wrong, unless you can support why the Bible is the only true accoun, and that all the others are not.

 

[dad]

They all say that Genesis is flawed though.

Not from a position of knowing what it is they are talking about! All PO based assumptions.

Ah, almost an admission that you would believe in Genesis irregardless of proof.

I admit that you will never be able to cast doubt on it, with what you got going!

I ask again, ASIDE from the Bible, what gives you this strength of conviction?

Aside from the bible, we are left with darkness, and the unknown only. That is where science can take you.Why not bolt, and come on over to heaven's perspective? They'll never catch us.

Feel free to submit this to Nature as a proof that evolution can now be dismissed.

Is Nature concerned with more than the present natural?

I want to scream "NO IT DOESN'T" at you, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you can give me, say, three significant pieces of scientific evidence that support any of the parts of Genesis that are'nt based on assumed knowledge (Genesis says there were animals, science says there were animals, for example, won't count), I promise sincerely, to become a YEC defender and believe every word you type from now on without question.

We have evidence that the continents were once together. --1 We have evidence that the spiritual is real, in that the majority of mankind acknowleges it some way. --2 We have evidence that life was not created all over the globe at one time --3.
Welcome to the club. Go get em.

Further, I will go back through all my previous posts and delete anythoing I have ever said that questions the accuracy of the Genesis account.

Hey, don't worry bout that. Enjoy life, be free of the cage, be happy.

 

[dad]

Why is the Bible more accurate than the ancient creation myths of any other culture? They were written down about the same time, yet vary drastically.

God had it written. There is only one God.

What about the fossil record? IT was "written" down at least as Genesis was occuring, if not way before, and it disagrees with the Genesis account too.

Not if we consider that life started mostly in Eden, even sea life. It spread from there, eventually appearing in the record.

So, to say its the Bible or nothing is wrong, unless you can support why the Bible is the only true accoun, and that all the others are not.

Well, take your pick on what you may like. Science can't take us to the past and future. Either it remains unknown, or we have some other vehicle.

 

[rambot]

Aside from the bible, we are left with darkness, and the unknown only. That is where science can take you.Why not bolt, and come on over to heaven's perspective? They'll never catch us.

Here's the thing;read carefully. BESIDES THE BIBLE.... That means, the Bible...AND ______

EP2 is nice enough to admit that the Bible could be considered "some kind of evidence" (I should say: he/she choses not to disregard it); all he/she wants is some MORE evidence.

So no more talk of darkness. You can use the Bible to light science.

 

[dad]

Here's the thing;read carefully. BESIDES THE BIBLE.... That means, the Bible...AND ______

EP2 is nice enough to admit that the Bible could be considered "some kind of evidence" (I should say: he/she choses not to disregard it); all he/she wants is some MORE evidence.

So no more talk of darkness. You can use the Bible to light science.

Besides the bible, we have science. Science can't help you in the past and future states. Therfore you have little choice. Bible, or nothing, or fairy tales.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Science can't help you in the past and future states

can you explin this?

As for your three scientifically supported proofs... um, well, if they are valid, would you not say that that is science dealing in the past?

However, before I throw myself wholely and souly onto the creationist side, I'm going to have to ask you for a little more information than "We have evidence that the continents were once together. --1 We have evidence that the spiritual is real, in that the majority of mankind acknowleges it some way. --2 We have evidence that life was not created all over the globe at one time --3."

Specifically, how science unequivoccally says that the Genesis account is precise and accurate. I wasn't aware that the Bible said anything about where life was created either, yet I may, as always, be corrected.

 

[dad]

can you explin this?

As for your three scientifically supported proofs... um, well, if they are valid, would you not say that that is science dealing in the past?

Yes, it is. A matter of interpreting the evidence. The state of the universe in the past or future itself cannot be known by science. One could ignore the evidence, and chose to believe that Santa did it, or that the past was the same and it did it's little self. Science alone cannot help us beyond the present.

Specifically, how science unequivoccally says that the Genesis account is precise and accurate. I wasn't aware that the Bible said anything about where life was created either, yet I may, as always, be corrected.

Science cannot say one way or the other, the poor little guy. Man was created, and put in Eden. There we named all the animals, and woman was made too. Naked. It was a place. Eden.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Uhuh... but thats not exactly scientific is it? again, you are relying on the Bible without any other supporting evidence.

Why not, say, the Gilgamesh epic? Its at least as old as the Bible...

 

[USincognito]

I think the best anti-evolutionists are the ones that were out when Darwin's book was pretty new. Their ignorance is tolerable since evolution was a new idea, and some of them were pretty good.

I don't remember who but someone said something along the lines of "Under which side of his family was Darwin suggesting decent from monkeys?" That's at least funny.

There are a lot of modern variations on this, but the original supposedly came from a debate between Bishop Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley.

 

[theFijian]

I disagree. It was not works that saved us any more than it is works that keep us saved. Heaven is full of sinners. just like us. Wew can try and do better, but to pretend we are to reach some supposed sinless state is absolute nonsense. Jesus paid the price, and His gifts, like salvation, are without repentance. This on again, off again so called salvation is nothing but a glorified works trip. Relax, people, once saved, we are always saved. That is the one healing we don't want to miss, if we never have a cold heal faster than normal, or a broken arm suddenly be fixed, etc.
Harping on the healings while missing the great healing, I am afraid is just depressing. No thank you.

LOL!! John gets a mega slapdown from dad! whatever next??

 

[JohnR7]

http://www.ernestangley.org/magazine/mag_text/oct2006.htm

That was written by By Maxine Young not Ernest Angley. She is a nice person and all, but your right that artical she wrote is mixed up and confused.

What Rev Angley actually teaches has to do with the rapture. For those who are alive at the time of the rapture they will have to be living free from sin.

If they are not living free from sin. Then they will go into the tribulation period. You see this in the parable of the ten virgins. Half are taken when Jesus comes and half are left behind.

The devil tries to deceive people into thinking they have no choice but to be sinners. But the power of God is able to do a work in us so that we can be set free from all bondage and we can live free from sin.

John 8:36
Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

Notice, we do not makes ourselves free. The Bible says it is the Son that makes us free.

Check out something that Rev Angley wrote and let me know if you find a problem with his teaching.

John Wesley had some interesting sermons that he did on "sinless perfection". He would ask questions like, if you can live free from sin for five min. then why not five hours, or five days, or five years?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

LOL!! John gets a mega slapdown from dad! whatever next??

I'm interested in the fundamental reasons that science displays a unity and the Christian church displays a disunity.



Part of the answer to this problem is displayed right here.
Religious faith seems to have a system-wide compliance ideal that science does not.

For example, say i'm a scientist talking about C14 dating. No one is going to raise an objection to my dating technique based on my ideas about how Heliobacter cause ulcers. There is a compartmentalization in science that separates unlike things and doesn't allow them to be used to understand or criticize unlike objects.

Look carefully at what is happening here. Two representatives of a system-YECists begin to argue about a theological idea-OSAS. It appears to stem from the monolithic nature of religious belief, everything looks to be connected at the same time and everything enters into every discussion. The result is the extreme fragmentation we see, not just here, but out in the world. Nothing can ever be discussed in this environment without introducting everything else as a consequence. Interesting problem


notes:
I disagree. It was not works that saved us any more than it is works that keep us saved.

 

[dad]

That was written by By Maxine Young not Ernest Angley. She is a nice person and all, but your right that artical she wrote is mixed up and confused.

OK

What Rev Angley actually teaches has to do with the rapture. For those who are alive at the time of the rapture they will have to be living free from sin.

If they are not living free from sin. Then they will go into the tribulation period. You see this in the parable of the ten virgins. Half are taken when Jesus comes and half are left behind.

Sort of pre trib rapture, with a bone thrown in for the post tribbers, OK. No sense trying to staighten that out here. I am post tribulation, all the way.

The devil tries to deceive people into thinking they have no choice but to be sinners.

I agree with him.

But the power of God is able to do a work in us so that we can be set free from all bondage and we can live free from sin.

True, even though we are ssinners, He freed us from that, and I think we are a lot better as a result. Not perfect, by any stretch, never will be.

Check out something that Rev Angley wrote and let me know if you find a problem with his teaching.

I don't want to find something, no doubt there are some things. Long as he believes in Jesus, I think we can get along. I believe in eternal salvation, and a rapture that comes after the tribulation of those days, as Jesus said.

John Wesley had some interesting sermons that he did on "sinless perfection". He would ask questions like, if you can live free from sin for five min. then why not five hours, or five days, or five years?

I don't worry about sin, we try the best we can. Jesus took care of all that. I don't worry about hell either. What a wondeful life.

 

[dad]

Uhuh... but thats not exactly scientific is it? again, you are relying on the Bible without any other supporting evidence.

Why not, say, the Gilgamesh epic? Its at least as old as the Bible...

Why not? Take your pick, science can't tell us the future.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

science can't tell us the future.

So, that whole predicting Halley's commet deal was what, a conspiracy?

 

[dad]

Dad, you owe me an answer...

I chose the bible to look beyond the severe present limits of science.
Jesus rose from the dead, and I got saved, tried the little prayer, and it works. Now I can see. Looking further into it, I see it works for millions, no dead document, that. I also see scores of astounding prophesies that could only come from One who was in the future. Not debateable. I looked into it. Jesus wasn't a warmonger, and weirdo, He loved and healed even the sinners, harlots, and tax collectors. He let the bad guys kill Him, so that man could be forever saved.
I simply looked at science, what we really do know, and realized that it is all based on the present. A simple answer to why this seems out of whack with the past and future of the bible, must be that they are different. Of course they had to be different. Eternal life is not possible in the flesh alone. Not even for matter.
Case solved. Science is restricted to it's little domain, and God is true as true can be. No worries. Victory.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Jesus wasn't a warmonger, and weirdo, He loved and healed even the sinners, harlots, and tax collectors. He let the bad guys kill Him, so that man could be forever saved.

No worries. I believe that too.

And this is dependant on a 6 day creation and suspension of the laws of physics how, precisely?

science can't tell us the future.

So, that whole predicting Halley's commet deal was what, a conspiracy?

 

[cerad]

Think we got a bit off topic here.
Anybody remember John Crawford?
The last remaining neanderthal?

Hope he gets resurrected soon as well.

 

[JohnR7]

after the tribulation of those days[/i], as Jesus said.

If you believe in eternal security, does that mean we lose our free will?
What is someone were to change their mind and decide that they do not want to be saved?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What is someone were to change their mind and decide that they do not want to be saved?

You think its likely someone already in heaven would chose to leave?