The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

So why don't you keep it to yourselves then? Your not so much imposing your beliefs but trying to ram it into peoples heads. Why do you people stand on the streets and tell us we are all going to hell? Of course you will say that they are not 'true christians', but to be fair thats what you all say, its kinda hard to tell what a true christian is.

We aren't allowed to keep it to ourselves:
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Nor would we want to:
Romans 10: 1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.

wolfsbane

daithifleming said:

to be fair thats what you all say, its kinda hard to tell what a true christian is.

Try reading the New Testament.

Ekancone

Asiaprod wrote: »

daithifleming wrote: »

No, it is quite fitting for a christian to be an ignorant, mindless bigot with a superiority complex. /quote]
A little strong! Would appreciate you toning it down a little
Asia

Sorry, his LMAO comment annoyed me. It shouldn't have.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

We aren't allowed to keep it to ourselves:
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

Nor would we want to:
Romans 10: 1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved.

So where is the line drawn between merely preaching and imposing?

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

daithifleming said:

Try reading the New Testament.

Strange, if it is as clear as that how come so many people read it and come up with different conclusions? What makes you so sure your interpretation is right?

Scofflaw

daithifleming wrote: »

So God can see the infinite number of possible outcomes? Something akin to multiple universe theory?

Well now, that is a very interesting question. No, I think God sees the choice you will have freely made.

It is usual, at this point, to say "but if God knows it in advance, then it isn't free - it's fixed" - to which the answer is "frame of reference". It's indeterminate in your frame of reference, because you're timebound. It's fixed in God's frame of reference, because He's not.

Alternatively, yes, he sees a fuzzy probabilistic map of time - possibly from God's point of view we are quantum objects, and there's an equivalent of Heisenberg's principle for us.

More drugs, vicar?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well now, that is a very interesting question. No, I think God sees the choice you will have freely made.

It is usual, at this point, to say "but if God knows it in advance, then it isn't free - it's fixed" - to which the answer is "frame of reference". It's indeterminate in your frame of reference, because you're timebound. It's fixed in God's frame of reference, because He's not.

Alternatively, yes, he sees a fuzzy probabilistic map of time - possibly from God's point of view we are quantum objects, and there's an equivalent of Heisenberg's principle for us.

More drugs, vicar?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ok, i fully understand.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Personal comments or insults are no substitute for rational argument.

Frankly, PDN, bearing in mind some of your comments about me, that's a bit rich coming from you.

bogwalrus

wolfsbane wrote: »

The man you talked to is saying no more than historic Christianity has said and still says. Any culture that condones sexual immorality has a 'fractured' view on life. Obviously we do not agree on what constitutes sexual immorality. Christians find your idea horrible and baseless too. Why are you so sure you have the right morality?

acceptance can come at many levels. As in accepting that this is the society of this day and age but not necessarily being happy about it and neither being able to do anything about it. I accept that the scumbags i see in town are there and are a product of bad social upbringings but i do not have the power to solve that problem but would try to help by maybe electing someone into the dail that could possibly solve the problem....via better education or what not. So in saying that i dont think it is appropriate to say that a culture can have a fractured view on life.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Frankly, PDN, bearing in mind some of your comments about me, that's a bit rich coming from you.

Robin, if I disagree with you I will certainly not hold back in expressing what I think of a statement or argument you have made. But I am unaware of having made the kind of personal comments that were directed at me today in this thread. I don't believe I have ever called you pompous, arrogant, or made blanket statements that all atheists are liars, or ignorant bigots with a superiority complex etc.

If I my memory is faulty and I have addressed such personal comments to you (always possible, I suppose, as some threads have become pretty heated in the past) then please do point it out to me either by posting it or by PM.

I always seek to accompany my insults with rational arguments. They are not a substitute for argument, but rather a way of spicing up an argument that is based on reason and logic.

J C

Eschatologist wrote: »

Most limestones are not very fossiliferous? What the hell JC! Limestones consist FOR THE MOST PART of the shells of marine organisms. They only appear non-fossilferous because these shells are microscopic. And I've seen them under a microscope so I think we can be clear on this point.

MOST limestones ARE made up of non-fossiliferous i.e. chemical CaCO3!!!!

.....some Limestones do contain (microscopic) Diatom CaCO3 and others contain macro-fossils such as shells, etc.

Eschatologist wrote: »

To quote you here,
"the Calcium Carbonate was mostly super-heated pure chemical Calcium Carbonate suspended in the subterreanean waters that burst fort during the Flood"

True, secondary calcite does precipitate out of meteoric waters in cave systems. But it's called a secondary product for a reason - the vast majority of limestone was and is deposited in marine settings by marine organisms. Inorganic limestone is almost always oolitic and I can tell you now that oolites are not formed by the 'bursting forth' of pure chemical calcium carbonate. That's a fact, believe it or not. A real scientific fact.

Could I gently remind you that ALL Limestone IS Calcite......i.e. CaCO3!!!!

......and 99% of all Limestone were formed when the 'fountains of the deep' burst forth laiden with suspended Calcite and this rapidly precipitated when it mixed with the superheated waters near the widespread sub-oceanic volcanic activity that was a fundamental characteristic of the Flood processes.

.......and Wikipedia confirms the validity of the contention that Limestone was FORMED and other sedimentary rocks were CEMENTED from CaCO3 that precipited out of the Flood waters ......and this occurred particularly rapidly when the waters were superheated!!!
"Calcite exhibits an unusual characteristic called retrograde solubility in which it becomes less soluble in water as the temperature increases.

When conditions are right for precipitation, calcite forms mineral coatings that cement the existing rock grains together or it can fill fractures."......as well as producing large scale Limestone formations!!!:eek::D

J C

Hot Dog wrote: »

Thank god for creationists

........fair enough!!!:D:eek:

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

MOST limestones ARE made up of non-fossiliferous i.e. chemical CaCO3!!!!

.....some Limestones do contain (microscopic) Diatom CaCO3 and others contain macro-fossils such as shells, etc.

Could I gently remind you that ALL Limestone IS Calcite......i.e. CaCO3!!!!

......and 99% of all Limestone precipitated out when the 'fountains of the deep' burst forth laiden with suspended Calcite and this rapidly precipitated out when it mixed with the widespread superheated waters near the sub-oceanic volcanic activity that was a fundamental part of the Flood processes.

.......and Wikipedia confirms the validity of the contention that Limestone was formed and other sedimentary rocks were cemented from CaCO3 that precipited out of the Flood waters ......and this occurred particularly rapidly when the waters were superheated!!!
"Calcite exhibits an unusual characteristic called retrograde solubility in which it becomes less soluble in water as the temperature increases.

When conditions are right for precipitation, calcite forms mineral coatings that cement the existing rock grains together or it can fill fractures."......as well as producing large scale Limestone formations!!!:eek::D

I'm not sure there's any other single claim you regularly make that demonstrates quite so clearly you don't have a notion about geology as this one.

amused,
Scofflaw

J C

Originally Posted by Hot Dog
strangely quiet from the creos these last few days.

wolfsbane wrote: »

There are only two of us here........

......and there has been only TWO of us here all along.......with hundreds of Evolutionists 'having a go'.......and ALL their arguments fizzling out like damp firecrackers!!!:eek::D

.....with God on our side WHO can stand against us???:D

It just takes TWO Christians..........as Jesus Christ says in Mt 18:20 "where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them"!!!!

J C

......and for those many Evolutionists whose arguments have been 'shot down in flames' on this thread.......... here are some words of comfort from a fellow Evolutionist and ACLU member Robert E. Smith who says:

"For the past five years, I have closely followed creationist literature and have attended lectures and debates on related issues.... based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution.
That this should now be the case is somewhat surprising, particularly in view of what most of us were taught in primary and secondary school.
In practical terms, the past decade of intense activity by scientific creationists has left most evolutionist professors unwilling to debate the creationist professors. Too many of the evolutionists have been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory."
"Origins and Civil Liberties," by Robert E. Smith as quoted in Creation Social Sciences and Humanities Quarterly, 3 (Winter 1980): 23-24.

.....equally the following quote could ALSO describe the 'state of play' on this thread:-
"At this point the war centering around Darwinism and its control over the scientific discussion of origins is going well for the creationists, and evolution is being defeated in many battles."
-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 12.


.....and this might be good advice for all of the Evolutionists on this thread as well:-
"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate."
-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.

Emphasis in all case mine!!!!:eek::):D

J C

Hot Dog wrote: »

strangely quiet from the creos these last few days

2Scoops wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for...

Good advice indeed!!!:eek::):D

.....see the quotes in my post ABOVE!!!:D;)

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate."
-Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.

Who says the earth is 10-20 billion years old? Oh, thats right, he is a psychologist. Thats why he doesn't know what he is talking about.

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Who says the earth is 10-20 billion years old?

I certainly didn't !!!!!!:eek::D

......but if you read Dr. Paul D. Ackerman's quote above, I think that you will find that he is referring to the supposed 10-20 billion year 'age' of the UNIVERSE.....according to the 'Big Bang' myth!!!!:eek::):D

daithifleming wrote: »

Oh, thats right, he is a psychologist. Thats why he doesn't know what he is talking about

.........and WHAT is it about Psychologists that makes them "not know what they are talking about"?????

.....could I suggest that the TRUTH is that Psychologists are PARTICULARLY WELL QUALIFIED to accurately ASSESS "the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences"......and the fact Dr Ackerman, as a Psychologist, concludes that "evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation" ....and "to delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate".....
.....is catastrophically damning to the Evolutionist 'cause'!!!:D:eek:

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

......and there has been only TWO of us here all along.......with hundreds of Evolutionists 'having a go'.......and ALL their arguments fizzling out like damp firecrackers!!!:eek::D

Ah, bless! He thinks he's winning! :rolleyes:

As the scientist of the Wolfsbane/J C double act, care to comment on some of the issues we've been discussing over your recent absence?

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Ah, bless! He thinks he's winning! :rolleyes:

Is being blessed by a Skeptic a FIRST.....I wonder????:eek:

.....anyway, I don't think that I am winning.......I know that I have won the debate!!!!:eek::)

2Scoops wrote: »

As the scientist of the Wolfsbane/J C double act, care to comment on some of the issues we've been discussing over your recent absence?

I have commented on ALL substantive NEW scientific issues raised in my recent absence from the thread!!!!:cool::D

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

I certainly didn't !!!!!!:eek::D

......but if you read Dr. Paul D. Ackerman's quote above, I think that you will find that he is referring to the supposed 'age' of the UNIVERSE.....according to the 'Big Bang' myth!!!!:eek::):D

Whoops, i was thinking of the observed age of Earth, never mind.

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

I have commented on ALL substantive NEW scientific issues raised in my recent absence from the thread!!!!:cool::D

Im afraid you haven't, would you like me to fetch them for you?

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....anyway, I don't think that I am winning.......I know that I have won the debate!!!!:eek::

One of the benefits of faith, I imagine.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

One of the benefits of faith, I imagine.

NO............Creation Scientists are SCIENTISTS.....objectively assessing and reporting on the available EVIDENCE.....

........while it is the Evolutionists who are the ones who are stuck with an 'evidentially challenged' faith-filled BELIEF .......that they are descended from a Slime Ball!!!!:eek::D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

NO............Creation Scientists are SCIENTISTS.....objectively assessing and reporting on the available EVIDENCE.....

...but not generating any evidence of their own. Stone throwers, and not very good ones.

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Whoops, i was thinking of the observed age of Earth, never mind.

Whoops......you are WRONG again......

The OBSERVED age of the Earth is less than 10,000 years!!!!:D:eek:

J C

Originally Posted by J C
NO............Creation Scientists are SCIENTISTS.....objectively assessing and reporting on the available EVIDENCE

2Scoops wrote: »

...but not generating any evidence of their own. Stone throwers, and not very good ones.

....certainly your fellow Evolutionist, Robert E. Smith DOESN'T agree with you, in relation to Creation Science:-

.........based solely on the scientific arguments pro and con, I have been forced to conclude that scientific creationism is not only a viable theory, but that it has achieved parity with (if not superiority over) the normative theory of biological evolution.........

..........Too many of the evolutionists have been publicly humiliated in such debates by their own lack of erudition and by the weaknesses of their theory.":eek::D:)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

....certainly you fellow Evolutionist, Robert E. Smith DOESN'T agree with you, in relation to Creation Science

He's entitled to his (28 year old) opinion. But even without all the information we have gathered since 1980, his opinion is completely wrong. I'm quite happy to disagree with him.

Edit: Oh, and Robert F Smith is a lawyer, if anyone's wondering...

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

He's entitled to his (28 year old) opinion. But even without all the information we have gathered since 1980, his opinion is completely wrong. I'm quite happy to disagree with him...

....and I can tell you the Evolutionist case has got a lot WORSE since the 1980's......and the Creationist case has gotten considerably STRONGER.....particularly with the new insights that genetic mapping and breakthroughs in our understanding of Intelligent Design 'markers' have given us!!!:D

2Scoops wrote: »

Edit: Oh, and Robert F Smith is a lawyer, if anyone's wondering...

.......which makes him PARTICULARLY WELL QUALIFIED to provide an OPINION on the relative WEIGHTS of the arguments between Creation Scientists and Evolutionists !!!!

......and his professional legal opinion......is that the Evolutionist case is so WEAK.......that it will be necessary for Evolutionist scientists to carefully avoid debate with Creation Scientists......in order to delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of the claims of Evolution!!!:eek::):D

......face it guys........the 'game is up' for Spontaneous Evolution......and this has been known for over thirty years!!!!:D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.......which makes him PARTICULARLY WELL QUALIFIED to provide an OPINION on relative WEIGHT of the arguments between Creation Scientists and Evolutionists !!!!

If you say so. :rolleyes: Speaking of lawyers, what was verdict in the Dover trial?