Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
daithifleming wrote: »How is that any different to what is posted by you guys? I understand that this is a Christianity forum, so if you want to stop people saying the opposite of the above, then fine. Why don't you oppose Wolfy saying that I'm going to burn in a pit of fire for eternity for not agreeing with him? Surely that is 'flaming'?
This forum is for the discussion of Christian belief. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for Christians to state their Beliefs. :rolleyes:
You are free to go on the A&A forum and state your beliefs as much as you like. I won't comment at all unless you misrepresent Christianity, make untrue statements, or 'invite' a response by exceptionally poor use of logic.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Glad you acknowledge the Bible commands only that which is good.daithifleming wrote: »Oh, how delightedly convenient.
If the voice says something good, it is god.
If the voice says something bad, it is insanity.
:rolleyes:
I did not say If the voice says something good, it is god. It might be of God. But I might so want to do something that is good in itself - say, give £1000 to feed the hungry in India - that I work myself into an emotional state and think my concern is God showing me what to do. God, however, might want me to give it to the Christian Blind Mission to treat river-blindness in Africa, or whatever. We have to prayerfully test even good desires.
But can be certain that any bad desires are not of God.0 -
-
-
I guess we're discussing the 'Bible' and 'Prophecy' bits of the thread's title, not just the 'Creationism' parts.Just taught I'd say the debate has taken a turn for the better over recent pages, much more stimulating than constantly arguing over floods and dinosaurs*.
I've come across many different ways that people feel God is speaking to them.Just a question, when people say 'God told me' in what way do they mean he told them?
Did it happen in a dream, while they were awake or did he tell them through various signs, things they noticed?
I know its probably different from case to case, but what's the general consensus?
1. Through the Bible. Of course Christians believe that all of the Bible is God speaking to us, but there are times when a particular verse or phrase seems to almost jump out of the page at you. That can be God focusing your attention on something He wants you to especially take note of.
2. Through a powerful sense of urgency in our minds. There are times when Christians find that a thought or idea impresses itself on their mind in a powerful way. For example, a friend of mine recently woke up in the middle of the night with a powerful urge to pray for his grandchild. He later discovered that she had undergone a severe medical crisis at that same hour. Some would say that was coincidence - but my friend is convinced it was God speaking to him and directing him to pray.
3. Through the advice of other people. We would believe that God can order our affairs so that wise people cross our paths and give us good advice.
4. Through visions or dreams, either while awake or asleep.
5. Through preaching. There are times when people come up after I have preached and say, "I know there were 500 other people here today - but I just feel as if God intended that message specially for me." (Of course there may be dozens of others who felt it was boring and irrelevant - but they are too nice to say so.
)
6. Through our rational thought processes. I have been unable to authenticate this as a genuine quote by John Wesley, but I heard it attributed to him: "The way that God usually tells me to do something is by putting good reasons into my head as to why I should do it."
7. Through supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit such as prophecy. This is where one Christian, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, may speak a message that purports to be from God, often even framed in the first person singular, "For I, the Lord, say unto you... etc."
I should add that not all Christians believe that this kind of prophecy still occurs today. I am especially suspicious of people who deliver such messages in Elizabethan English as if God got stuck in a time warp back then.
8. Some people see things as signs. eg: "If the next vehicle that comes down the road is a red Volkswagen then that's a sign that I'm to become a priest." While this is not necessarily a symptom of clinical insanity, I would certainly see it as indicative of extreme stupidity.
9. Finally, and most infrequently, you will find the occasional person who claims that God spoke to them in an audible voice.
All of these claimed revelations must be measured and tested to see if they are consistent with the overall message and meaning of Scripture.0 -
Advertisement
-
In Science we can only deal with current valid hypotheses…..and a mythical "third option we haven't considered yet"….. or even defined......is just a pious hope on the part of materialists…..and it has no scientific or logical validity.:)Originally Posted by J C
There are ONLY two basic hypotheses for the origin of life.....
EITHER life was created/evolved/designed by an 'Intelligence'
OR life was created/evolved/designed 'spontanously' by exclusively materialistic means
.....so showing one basic hypothesis (materialism) to be false DOES prove the alternative ('Intelligence') hypothesis to be true!!!!
Originally Posted by bonkey
This holds true if you can show that there are and can be no other possibilities.Can you do so?
Originally Posted by J C
It holds true until somebody shows that there IS another possibility.....
Can you do so?
Bonkey
If one cannot show that the options presented cover the entire range of possible options, then one cannot claim that the range of options presented covers the entire range of possible options.
More correctly...as you have adequately demonstrated, one can most certainly make the claim, but the claim holds no water. The most obvious third option - which you conveniently ignore - is "or some third option we haven't considered yet".
You have conceded that the hypothesis (that life was created/evolved/designed 'spontanously' by exclusively materialistic means) is invalid…….
…..and therefore the only alternative hypothesis currently extant is that life was created/evolved/designed by an 'Intelligence'!!!:pac::)
Something that we have never observed and for which we cannot even imagine functional intermediates or how it could have occurred…….can be safely assumed to have NEVER occurred!!!:DBonkey
Its the same problem you have with woodpeckers...that we cannot (currently) define the missing intermediate states does not mean that those states could not exist.
…..so Woodpeckers DIDN’T evolve their trans-cranial tongues…….but were created complete with their amazing tongues ex nihilo!!!
……we are Human…..so we can err…….but because ‘Molecules to Man Evolution’ is invalid, to start with…….Evolutionists are pre-disposed to error……it’s actually an ever-present reality for them!!! :eek:Originally Posted by J C
......it took nearly 100 years for Evolutionists to finally jettison Ernst Haeckel's invalid belief that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"!!!!
bonkey
Tell me...what was the last thing Creationists admitted to getting something wrong,
Boats have been around since the Flood……..and the only people who continue to believe in the spontaneous generation of genetic information are Evolutionists!!!:)Originally Posted by J C
The fact that Christians are to be found amongst ALL nations and peoples on Earth suggests that there is much more than Geography at work here!!
Galvasean
The invention of the boat and airplane helped their migration. Or did they just start appearing spontaneously (you seem to have an affinity for that word)?
Many Creation Scientists are leading conventional scientists of exceptional ability.....and therefore St. Augustine’s quote has no relevance for Creation Science!!!Hot Dog
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men"
St Augustine
……but could his comments have some relevance for latter day Theistic Evolutionists, I wonder???!!!!!!:)
…….as the Theistic Evolutionists have been remarkably silent during the last 7,000 posts (after an initial flurry at the start of the thread)…….PDN
I don't think the thread would close because Christians have opposing views on Creationism.
......the thread might well have ‘run out of steam’ if the Atheists hadn't continued the debate !!!!
.....and kept me engaged in pointing out their logical and scientific 'own goals'!!!:d
Huh......or should that be .....Hah!!!!:)Eschatologist
How very typical. You haven't backed anyone into a corner, and citing the science which backs your claim while ignoring all other evidence is blatantly unscientific. 'Invalid evolutionist hypotheses'? Ha! You've yet to produce a geologic model that makes any sense. Yes I'm sure my, Hot Dog's and riftfiends geologic points haven't backed you into a corner, oh no...
By the way, I'm a geologist not an evolutionist - I'm no more an 'evolutionist' than I am a 'plate tectonicist'
Objective reality IS reality…….and your substitution of your own personal ‘reality’ …….is NOT reality!!:)Originally Posted by J C
......the Evolutionist Research has been ongoing for over 100 years....so when will you ‘call it a day’ and accept that Spontaneous Evolution is simply invalid.....and 'more research' will only invalidate it even further!!!
.......I would, if I was defending a 'smaller corner'......but the only ones in a corner on this thread are the hundreds of Evolutionists who have thrown ALL they had at me.....and acted as an aid memoire by listing every invalid Evolutionist hypothesis known to Man....
Hot Dog
"I reject your reality and substitute my own"
……when it comes to Religion you simply ‘pay your money and take your choice!!!Killbot 2000
But how do I know which religion to choose, especially with the choice I have, not to mention the contradictions between them?
The Christian FAITH is a saving FAITH in Jesus Christ…….and you are entirely free to believe on Jesus ……or not …..as you prefer.
Geography can have a significant impact on the promulgation of religion.Killbot 2000
In terms of my point about geography, you would have to admit that it has a huge role to play in determining what religion a person believes in.
The Christian Faith is divinely ordained and geography has little influence on it……Saved Christians are to be found amongst all peoples and nations!!!Killbot 2000
Gravity is not observable, by that I mean I do not observe the force itself only its effects.
Ditto with God.....at the moment ......and in our current corporeal state!!!!!!
Perhaps the following distinctions may help….Killbot 2000
Your main point about "forensic science" states that it is based on logic, but religion is not logic based it is faith based and as such has nothing to say about the universe. I can accept the logic of philosophy in explaining the world around me but not faith based religion.
Religion is a system of rules and/or philosophy.
Christianity is Faith…..
……and Creation Science is Science.Killbot 2000
Why do you insist on grouping evolution and abiogenesis? Yes evolution is dependent on such a phenomenon, but it is also utterly dependent on the big bang theory and stellar nucleosynthesis and planetary formation etc.
……and all these ‘dependencies’ utterly invalidates Spontaneous Materialistic Evolution!!!!!:):D0 -
-
How do you know that these are terrestrial olfactory genes……or even that they are ‘non-functional’??Killbot 2000
This point may be getting repetitive but I feel it is a good one. Why do cetaceans have non functional terrestrial olfactory genes if not due to their descent from a terrestrial ancestor?
The fact that superficially similar genes control the smell sense in other creatures DOESN’T mean that they have a similar function in Cetaceans!!!:)
Why????Killbot 2000
There is no way that an intelligent designer is going to insert such a set of genes into the collective genomes of the group.
It seems to be ‘cutting edge’ Geology actually……did you read it fully???pH
This is my favourite:
"Testing the Hydrothermal Fluid Transport Model for Polonium Radiohalo Formation: The Thunderhead Sandstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Tennessee–North Carolina
by Andrew A. Snelling
The meta-arkoses of the Thunderhead Sandstone in the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee and North Carolina contain both detrital zircon grains and metamorphic biotite flakes in all zones of regional metamorphism. The original sandstones after deposition would have contained water. Furthermore, the reaction responsible for the mineralogical changes at the staurolite isograd would have produced large volumes of water. Thus it was predicted that during the regional metamorphism these waters as hydrothermal fluids should have transported Po from the zircon grains to the biotite flakes to generate Po radiohalos in the latter. Also, the greater volume of hydrothermal fluids at the staurolite isograd should have generated more Po radiohalos there. Both predictions were verified, with four–five times more Po radiohalos in the meta-arkoses straddling the staurolite isograd. These results also verify the hydrothermal fluid transport model for Po radiohalo formation. It was concluded that the regional metamorphism, the hydrothermal fluid flows, the cooling of the regional metamorphic complex, and the formation of the Po radiohalos all had to have occurred within a few weeks. This is feasible in the context of catastrophic plate tectonics and grossly accelerated 238U decay during the Genesis Flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/testing-radiohalos-model
It seems to be mainly anti-geology
….and BTW if you still believe in the ‘sacred cow’ of static nuclear decay rates here is a group of conventional physicists who have discovered that decay rates are NOT constant……and million year half lives can be slashed to ‘thousands of years’ ……thereby presenting opportunities for easier handling of nuclear waste…..and you can read about it here
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/25446
…..and you can read about Accelerated Nuclear Decay here
http://creationwiki.org/Accelerated_decay
….and a United States Patent has been granted on a Nuclear Decay ACCELERATOR!!
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5076971.html
....and here is a peer reviewed Creation Science paper which uses Kaluza-Klein theory, to evaluate how nuclear decay could vary. Kaluza-Klein theory synthesises Einstein’s gravitation theory with Maxwell’s equations of electricity and magnetism.
Kaluza and Klein anticipated modern string theory, by adding a fifth dimension of space. They concluded that the relationship between G and the Fine Structure Constant depends on the circumference of the compactified fifth dimension.
The paper has concluded that "variation in this circumference over the history of the universe could be viewed as variation in physical constants, such as the fine structure constant. If, during early creation week, say before the creation of man, such variations were to occur, they could lead to accelerated nuclear decay, thus adjusting isotopic abundances, without giving humans an unacceptable dose of radiation."
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_1/chaffin/acceldecay.html
.....sounds like nuclear decay is not constant at all.....and can vary by many orders of magnitude!!!!
What evidence????Dathifleming
the masses of evidence which shows the bible to be a load of nonsense is more important that individual beliefs.
Animals DON’T fear DEATH in the abstract…..they will flee from DANGER alright…….but ONLY (unsaved) Humans fear death.......and it's aftermath!!!:eek:Atomichorror
The fear of death is a requirement of any feeling self-replicating entity. I fear it not because of any sophisticated philosophical concept, nor the damnation you would try to worry me with, and shame on you for that. I fear it because hundreds of millions of years worth of my ancestors had to fear it for me to exist.
…..and if you are wrong, you will have an eternity to ponder your ‘temporary fulfilment’!!!Atomichorror
We are temporary, so temporary fulfillment is perfectly adequate.
…..so 6.5 billion 'subjective moralities' somehow add up to 'an objective sense'....of WHAT???Atomichorror
There is no objective morality- it is an invention created to satisfy our need for justice on some astral plane when justice cannot be had. Instead, there are 6.5 billion subjective moralities. The closest thing to an objective sense that exists is the sum average of these expressed through laws.
……the concepts of ‘right and wrong’ vary over time and space and between people…….what was considered to be ‘right’ twenty years ago may be ‘wrong’ now…..and vice versa……..so, as you have said, we have no objective, context-free imperatives ……..and therefore the absolute concepts of 'right and wrong' don't actually exist independently of God!!!Atomichorror
This does not invalidate "right and wrong", it strengthens them. They are concepts that we arrive at through consensus and debate, through the purifying fire of generations of scrutiny. Not some absolute, context-free imperitives zapped onto stone slabs by a being of incredible power and indeterminate motive.
Nobody is ‘threatening’ you with eternal perdition………Woilfsbane was merely pointing out that it COULD be a possibility!!!Atomichorror
I will thank you not to threaten me with eternal darkness. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to become a convert through fear?
Only God can judge your Eternal Destiny…….and only YOU can choose it!!!!:)
……so a snake with a pair of sexual ‘grippers’ (just like modern Boas and Pythons) was found fossilised……well surprise, surprise…….a snake with a pair of copulatory ‘grippers’ that was drowned in Noah’s Food!!!!!:eek::Ddaitifleming
Ancient serpent shows its leg
"In most cases, we can't find digits; but that may be because they are not preserved or because, as this is a vestigial leg, they were never present."
To modern eyes, it may seem strange to think of a snake with legs.
But look at some of the more primitive modern snakes, such as boas and pythons, and you'll see evidence of their legged ancestry - tiny "spurs" sited near their ends, which today are used as grippers during sex.
……The stumpy hind-limb is only 2cm (0.8in) long, and was presumably utterly useless to the animal in life.”
Can't wait to see AiG's wacky explanation for this
…..at least one new one ever year……..you don’t say!!!!:eek:Galvasean
Wow, another 'missing link'. Creationists always claim we haven't found any, but we seem to find at least one new one every year!
……so here we have a pair of sex ‘grippers’……..on a SNAKE……..that are less than an inch long!!!!!!!!!:eek:
......and HOW does a one inch 'sexual appendage' qualify as a 'missing link'???
BTW thanks for using your signature to popularise the Triceratops / Rhinoceros equivalence!!!!
…..an Indian Rhinoceros would be the nearest living relative of the Triceratops….you might consider adjusting your signature accordingly.:D
……..NOBODY has successfully challenged either myself or Wolfsbane on ANY substantive point yet…..PDN
I'm very happy for atheists to point out why they disagree with anything that another poster has stated. So, for example, you may want to point out what you see as inconsistencies in a post by Wolfsbane or by JC. You may also want to point out scientific evidence or physical phenomena that, in your opinion, invalidates their points.
…….so you might want to consider using a better example to illustrate your point!!!;):)
…..or perhaps they return because they ALSO hope to marry Lucinda?????:eek::DPDN
I remember one Christian youth group where three of the guys were convinced that God had told them that they would marry Lucinda. (Lucinda just happened to be drop dead gorgeous). I've also noticed that people always blame God when they want to leave and go to a different church. Sometimes God changes his mind a few months later so they come back to our church again.0 -
-
-
Eschatologist said:
Thanks to you too - it is good to teasle out what others actually think rather than what we think they think.Thanks for the comments wolfsbane, I feel somewhat clearer on your stance and definitions.
Hey, I find that it also helps me know what I think, rather than what I think I think!
We certainly accept that the Creationist case is a tiny minority amongst this world's scientists. But let me suggest that the 'evident' strength of any one's position leads them to the same conclusions: that the opposing case at the very least falls flat, and one sees few to no consistencies with the evidence unless you carefully pick and choose the science that suits any given argument. That applies across the board, to debates among scientists outside of the creation/evolution issue. So I'm saying one should hold scientific hypotheses lightly, being open to the idea one may be mistaken.Differing interpretations of the available data to provide explanations is fine and the scientific method encourages that; but after that the interpretation must stand up to repeated scrutiny and testing. As a model, an interpretation must make accurate predictions which themselves can be tested and verified - as a geologist I can say with certainty for myself, my colleagues in my field, indeed the majority of scientists that a young Earth explanation from a geological perspective at the very least falls flat, I see few to no consistencies with the evidence unless you carefully pick and choose the science that suits any given argument.
My geology musings here are often ignored, vague replies are given instead or supposed fallacies, old ages for young rocks for example, are quoted back at me in defiance despite the fact that I've given logical and verified evidence for why this occurs and backed it up with peer-reviewed papers.
I'm sorry I can't engage directly with your geological arguments, or even assess how compelling they are. All I can do is point you to the articles by the Creationist geologists who may deal with the issues.
Here's an example. You wrote:
The ice ages too: 6000 years isn't nearly long enough to account for all of them, considering what we know about how orbital cycles affect the climate. And let's not forget those ancient Huronian ice ages and the Proterozoic snowballs/slushballs. Looks like the Earth must have oscillated rapidly between the planet-melting runaway tectonics and the freezing ice sheets, and all in 6000 years...
I did a search on creationontheweb.com and the first that took my eye was an on-line book, written at a popular level but seems to me to deal with some of the issues:
Geologists have claimed that these features have been found in ancient
rock layers, proving that there had been previous ice ages over geologic
time. Many lines of evidence now indicate that the observations have
been misinterpreted:3
• The ‘tillites’ of lower rock layers are small in area, commonly thick,
and probably all of marine origin, whereas those of modern glaciers
are relatively large in area, thin and continental.
• There are limestones and dolomites frequently associated with these
‘tillites’—carbonates which form today in warm water, not cold.
• The largest boulders in the ancient ‘tillites’ are much smaller than the
larger boulders being deposited by glacial action today.
• Underwater mass flows can produce tillite-like deposits, as well as
striated bedrock and striated stones in the ‘tillite’. Such mass flows
would be expected during Noah’s Flood.
• Turbidity currents can deposit varve-like laminated sediments very
quickly.6 These sediments are more accurately called rhythmites. A
varve is defined as a rhythmite deposited in one year. Lambert and
Hsu have presented evidence from a Swiss lake that such varve-like
rhythmites form rapidly by catastrophic, turbid water underflows.7
At one location, five couplets of these varve-like rhythmites formed
during a single year. At Mount St Helens in the USA, an 8 m (25 ft)
thick stratified deposit consisting of many thin varve-like laminae was
formed in less than one day (June 12, 1980).8 Flow tank experiments
have shown how laminations can form rapidly when two different
grain sizes are carried together in flowing water.9
• The so-called ‘dropstones’ could not have been dropped into the ancient
‘varvites’10 because such a method of placement would result
in tell-tale disturbance of the laminations, which is rarely observed.
The evidence suggests they were placed with the enclosing sediments
by turbidity currents or other mass flows—again consistent with what
would be expected during a global Flood. In other words the ‘varvites’
did not come from cyclical, annual, glacial lake deposition.
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf
But for more technical material see sites such as:
Research Papers
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/
Selected Articles
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles_chron.htm0 -
PDN says it for me too.I guess we're discussing the 'Bible' and 'Prophecy' bits of the thread's title, not just the 'Creationism' parts.
I've come across many different ways that people feel God is speaking to them.
1. Through the Bible. Of course Christians believe that all of the Bible is God speaking to us, but there are times when a particular verse or phrase seems to almost jump out of the page at you. That can be God focusing your attention on something He wants you to especially take note of.
2. Through a powerful sense of urgency in our minds. There are times when Christians find that a thought or idea impresses itself on their mind in a powerful way. For example, a friend of mine recently woke up in the middle of the night with a powerful urge to pray for his grandchild. He later discovered that she had undergone a severe medical crisis at that same hour. Some would say that was coincidence - but my friend is convinced it was God speaking to him and directing him to pray.
3. Through the advice of other people. We would believe that God can order our affairs so that wise people cross our paths and give us good advice.
4. Through visions or dreams, either while awake or asleep.
5. Through preaching. There are times when people come up after I have preached and say, "I know there were 500 other people here today - but I just feel as if God intended that message specially for me." (Of course there may be dozens of others who felt it was boring and irrelevant - but they are too nice to say so. )
6. Through our rational thought processes. I have been unable to authenticate this as a genuine quote by John Wesley, but I heard it attributed to him: "The way that God usually tells me to do something is by putting good reasons into my head as to why I should do it."
7. Through supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit such as prophecy. This is where one Christian, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, may speak a message that purports to be from God, often even framed in the first person singular, "For I, the Lord, say unto you... etc."
I should add that not all Christians believe that this kind of prophecy still occurs today. I am especially suspicious of people who deliver such messages in Elizabethan English as if God got stuck in a time warp back then.
8. Some people see things as signs. eg: "If the next vehicle that comes down the road is a red Volkswagen then that's a sign that I'm to become a priest." While this is not necessarily a symptom of clinical insanity, I would certainly see it as indicative of extreme stupidity.
9. Finally, and most infrequently, you will find the occasional person who claims that God spoke to them in an audible voice.
All of these claimed revelations must be measured and tested to see if they are consistent with the overall message and meaning of Scripture.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
daithifleming wrote: »They are just boring JC, same old exclamation marks and millions of dots and smiley faces, hiding the fact that there is no argument to read. If you are an academic, why not start behaving like one on here?
I find it intriguing that someone who doesn't even read JC's posts any more can still reply to them. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement