The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

he said: "The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout". Not that his interpretation of the Bible was inerrant throughout.

Aye, and he also says:

The Bearded Wonder wrote:

No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

...and the rest of his site -- all the hundreds (thousands?) of pages of vacuous, pious piffle -- is based upon his own personal interpretation of the "Scriptural Record", presumably all of it. As I said.

In any case, Ham would have some difficulty selling you his opinion if, to start with, he didn't have an interpretation that you find convincing.

When you make logic errors which are as elementary as this, it's little wonder that creationism seems appealing

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

J.C., I'd love to hear about your ET encounters...

....we wouldn't want to cause palpatations for Wicknight ......and the 'Men in Black'......now would we?:eek:

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....it is not my imagination......it is the Word of God that there are only TWO alternatives....Heaven and Hell.

Wicknight
Yes but it doesn't have to be this way. It is God's decision it is this way.

It doesn't have to be that way......but that is how it is!!!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....as I have said, I'm not making it up.....it is the Word of God on the matter!!!

Wicknight
You are saying that God had to set things up this way, which isn't true.

I'm saying that this is HOW God has set things up .....and it is true that there is a Heaven and a Hell!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....He could, He didn't.....so there are just 2 options!!!
......perhaps it is laughable to you......but it is nontheless TRUE!!

Wicknight
Its not true, you just admitted it isn't true.

He could have set things up another way. He decided to set things up this way. He could change his mind if he was bothered or you know, actually loved us as your religion claims.

Stop going into denial......I ONLY admitted that God COULD have done it differently....but He didn't....and so it's TRUE that there are only two options when you die!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
.....anyway you are staying remarkable quiet about my ET encounters!!!!

Wicknight
Your what in the what now?

WHO or WHAT is stopping you discussing this????

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
......I have a message for you from the Holy Spirit......come out.......and believe on Jesus Christ to save you.

Wicknight
No thanks.

WHO or WHAT is stopping you doing this????

J C

PDN wrote: »

Come on, JC, we are all ears.

....all ears eh.....it must be very uncomfortable when somebody turns up the TV in the room beside you!!!!:eek::D:)

......ask Wicknight why he is afraid to discuss this!!!:D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

I wouldn't put me in heaven if I was God. Heck I don't even want to be in heaven.

.....and that is why God has given you the free will to make this decision!!!

Wicknight wrote: »

But the idea that the only alternative to that is the lake of fire and suffering in hell is nonsense.

WHO told you that???

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

....we wouldn't want to cause palpatations for Wicknight ......and the 'Men in Black'......now would we?:eek:

Ah come on now J C, you aren't just a tease are you?

How unchristian.

bonkey

J C wrote: »

so please avoid the temptation to second-guess my replies!!!!!:eek::D

I don't tell you how to post, or how to think JC. I'll thank you to offer me the same courtesy.

As for your repeated references to ETs...I suspect that you are avoiding the use of the words "extra terrestrial" because you are using the letters to mean something else - possibly something like "Evolutionism Theorist" and are stictching people up.

As for your ridiculous claims that anyone is avoiding the subject....Wicknight asked you a question. I'm somewhat baffled by your ability to misconstrue a question as a refusal to engage in the topic, rather than as a request for information.

I say baffled, because I have to ask myself who you are trying to impress, and how, by demonstrating such a fundamental inability to comprehend simple English language constructs.

Galvasean

Did I read right or did J C state one of the reason he is Christian is that the aliens told him to be?

iUseVi

Galvasean wrote: »

Did I read right or did J C state one of the reason he is Christian is that the aliens told him to be?

You really that surprised?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

It doesn't have to be that way......but that is how it is!!!!!:D

So why did you say it had to be this way to allow us to have free will?

J C wrote: »

I'm saying that this is HOW God has set things up .....and it is true that there is a Heaven and a Hell!!!:D

What might be what you are saying now, but earlier you were saying that for God to stop sending people to hell would remove our free will. Which, I'm sure you agree now, is nonsense.

J C wrote: »

[/B] Stop going into denial......I ONLY admitted that God COULD have done it differently....but He didn't....and so it's TRUE that there are only two options when you die!!

Not for God. For God there are infinite options. He has decided to only offer us these two options.

J C wrote: »

WHO or WHAT is stopping you discussing this????

Discussing what? I have no idea what you are referring to.

J C wrote: »

WHO or WHAT is stopping you doing this????

Well God is. I can't in good conscience worship him because he sends people to hell. If he stopped sending people to hell I might reconsider. The ball is in his court, lets see how much he real loves me. :pac:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

.....and that is why God has given you the free will to make this decision!!!

Well I wouldn't put me in hell either.

It is funny that you believe in an all powerful God yet you place your own limits on what he can do. You declare that if he doesn't send me to heaven he must have to send me to hell.

J C wrote: »

WHO told you that???

No one did .. ? I'm not following, what is that referring to?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

....we wouldn't want to cause palpatations for Wicknight ......and the 'Men in Black'......now would we?:eek:

J C wrote:

......ask Wicknight why he is afraid to discuss this!!!

Am I missing something?

What there a post that I didn't get a chance to read?

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

Am I missing something?

What there a post that I didn't get a chance to read?

It seems to have something to do with aliens. Or ETs, or something like that.

Zombrex

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It seems to have something to do with aliens. Or ETs, or something like that.

I imagine that is what we are supposed to think, and then JC is going to say something like

Ha! ET means evolutionary theorists, not extra-terrestrials! Suckers! I just made you all look stupid. Ha I am so freaking cool! Praise Jesus

Or some such (of course there will be more smiley faces and unnecessary punctuation in JC's version) At which point Wolfsbane will probably get all starry-eyed and impressed, and probably also praise Jesus, at the exposed foolishness of the "Evolutionists"

But I digress ...

I would be interested to know what discussion I'm supposed to be avoiding though.

The Mad Hatter

Wicknight wrote: »

I imagine that is what we are supposed to think, and then JC is going to say something like

Ha! ET means evolutionary theorists, not extra-terrestrials! Suckers! I just made you all look stupid. Ha I am so freaking cool! Praise Jesus

Or some such (of course there will be more smiley faces and unnecessary punctuation in JC's version) At which point Wolfsbane will probably get all starry-eyed and impressed, and probably also praise Jesus, at the exposed foolishness of the "Evolutionists"

But I digress ...

I would be interested to know what discussion I'm supposed to be avoiding though.

I think it's the 'discussion' on the existence of ETs, though I'm not sure.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
he said: "The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout". Not that his interpretation of the Bible was inerrant throughout.
Aye, and he also says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bearded Wonder
No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Which is to say, the Bible is inerrant.

...and the rest of his site -- all the hundreds (thousands?) of pages of vacuous, pious piffle -- is based upon his own personal interpretation of the "Scriptural Record", presumably all of it. As I said.

Indeed - his interpretation, not necessarily inerrant.

In any case, Ham would have some difficulty selling you his opinion if, to start with, he didn't have an interpretation that you find convincing.

I find a lot of it convincing, but not all. Certainly nothing inerrant about it. Nor have I ever heard him claim to be inerrant.

When you make logic errors which are as elementary as this, it's little wonder that creationism seems appealing

I'm glad to be on this side of the logic mirror, rather than yours. As I said before, your arguments always encourage me concerning the falsity of evolution and the truth of creation. Many thanks.

wolfsbane

rockbeer wrote: »

If only one of those were made of wood and floated, you might just have something.

You don't think people with technology in one field might have it in another? Or at the very least, have proved themselves to be capable of such?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah because you guys are over flowing with consideration for you being wrong about how you interpret Genesis.

The vast majority of Christians do not interpret Genesis as meaning a young Earth. You guys do. And you think you aren't, and can't, be wrong.

:rolleyes:

Some things are very plain in the Bible. While you are correct in saying that most Christians today do not interpret Genesis as meaning a young Earth, we need to understand that:
1. The Church from its inception held to a Young Earth interpretation. It is the Christian view. All other views have to set aside the historic understanding and explain why the Church was in ignorance about this 'truth' for so long.

2. Most Christians today are not Christian in the New Testament sense of the word.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

If God didn't send people to hell that wouldn't be an issue. God is the only being that sends people to hell. We don't send ourselves to hell. See annoy God by disobeying him, and he sends us to hell because he is pissed off.

To be saved from hell we need to be saved from God's action.

Correct. And God sends people to hell for disobeying Him. Indeed, He has to appropriately punish sin, otherwise He would not be a holy God. To ignore sin is to condone it.

MooseJam

well how about something a bit more reasonable, like 50 lashes instead of an eternity burning in hell, it's hardly a reasonable punishment for most sins

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some things are very plain in the Bible. While you are correct in saying that most Christians today do not interpret Genesis as meaning a young Earth, we need to understand that:
1. The Church from its inception held to a Young Earth interpretation. It is the Christian view. All other views have to set aside the historic understanding and explain why the Church was in ignorance about this 'truth' for so long.

2. Most Christians today are not Christian in the New Testament sense of the word.

Or to put it another way, you guys believe you can't be wrong. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

Correct. And God sends people to hell for disobeying Him. Indeed, He has to appropriately punish sin, otherwise He would not be a holy God. To ignore sin is to condone it.

That is a bit of a silly way of looking at.

You don't obey me but I certainly don't want to send you to a lake of fire for all eternity.

It is only God's flawed emotional needy state that makes him get so worked up over people disobeying him.

AtomicHorror

Turn my back for a day and we're back to arguing over what could very well be just a story book. This is a long reply, sorry.

J C wrote: »

.....it proves that some Evolutionists use the term Spontaneous to describe Materialistic Evolution.......

It proves that three biolgists each once used the word spontaneous in an ambiguous sense. Did their research make such a case? Can you show me where?

J C wrote: »

...and if there are no Spontaneous Evolutiuonists on this thread......then that may be a good thing .......because that could be their first step in starting to question the entire crumbling Materialistic Evolution edefice!!

You act as if we haven't been questioning it all along. That's the point of science.

J C wrote: »

......that is what I have been trying to do for the past 725 pages......but the paucity of scientific evidence presented for Spontaneous Evolution has been vanishing to the point of non-existence!!!!:)

No, you've just ignored most of them and challenged a few by playing with semantics.

J C wrote: »

Special Creation is the Creationist equivalent of BOTH Abiogenesis AND Spontaneous Proto-cell to Man Evolution.......

The equivalence of Special Creation to a theory of life that you invented is of no interest to me. At this time, there is no unified theory of life, spontaneous or otherwise.

J C wrote: »

…and BOTH the original Abiogenesis AND the Proto-cell to Man Evolution are supposed to be 'spontaneous' according to Materialists.....i.e. BOTH emerged from matter using only the Laws of Physics and Chemistry to produce them....and without any intelligent input!!!

That is not what “spontaneous” means. It means without any apparent external influence, intelligent or otherwise. Your definition is inaccurate, and so your use of the term “spontaneous evolution” as an equivalent of Darwinian evolution, abiogenesis or any combination if these is therefore also inaccurate.

Cut the crap and have the courage to use accurate, well-understood and widely accepted terms so that your position is clear and unambiguous.

J C wrote: »

.......so for Atheists to truly have an intellectually satisfying Materialism.......BOTH Spontaneous Generation / Abiogenesis AND Spontaneous Proto-cell to Man Evolution need to have some scientific validity.......

A good thing that both do then… for the “devout” atheists. The scientific community, on the other hand, will be quite satisfied to continue to merely pursue the truth, be it satisfying or otherwise.

J C wrote: »

…and NEITHER have so far succeded in achieving such a distinction!!!!:eek::D

Scientific validity would surely be defined by scientists. Public opinion may well be another matter, but the vast majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution. Abiogenesis, as a set of hypotheses, are similarly of high standing within science.
Your contention that these have not achieved scientific validity is nonsense.

J C wrote: »

.....you DID mention that Spontaneous Evolution and Spontaneous Abiogenesis are separate.....but as NEITHER have been scientifically validated.....you haven't progressed your argument very much!!!!:D

Evolution has been validated time and again over its lifetime. It has yet to be invalidated which is why it is still theory. The various variants of abiogenesis have been and continue to be validated. Their validation is actually a problem, because we don’t yet know enough to establish which of them is correct. Hence their status as hypotheses rather than theory.

As to progressing my argument, I think it has progressed just fine with anyone who possesses a less selective memory and circular reasoning than yours.

J C wrote: »

......the discovery of the vast specific information densities of DNA is actually one of the prime scientific reasons why Spontaneous/Matreialistic Evolution is WRONG.....

Explain to me in scientific terms how the information density of DNA falsifies evolution.

J C wrote: »

…and so Sir Arthur Keith's belief that Evolution is unproved and unprovable.......remains completley valid today!!!!

So you categorically state that Keith is correct and that Evolution is unproven despite the fact that it has not been falsified in 150 years of testing. That it cannot be falsified. You say this directly after stating that evolution has been falsified due to the information density of DNA. Bravo.

J C wrote: »

Equally, his conclusion that both himself and his fellow Materialists believe in Evolution because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable......ALSO remains valid today!!!:D:)

Once again, his opinion does not define us. Scientists have no interest in taking the word of other scientists as fact without validation. We’ll leave that sort of credulous naivety to the likes of you.

J C wrote: »

......the dogma starts where the observations stop......and Materialists start speculating about 'Muck evolving into Man

I will not dispute that Evolution caused many to speculate about the origins of life. Certain things follow implicitly from it and are apparent to lay people and scientists alike. But it also spawned hypotheses, something entirely different.

The research into abiogenesis is not speculation. It is the testing of a variety of hypotheses.

Dogma requires that we do not question, it is authoritative and immutable. It is meant to be perfect.

Evolution is questioned with every genetics experiment. It is tested thousands if not millions of times a year. As a result, it has been modified in countless ways over the last 150 years to fit the known facts. Some dogma.

J C wrote: »

.....when all they have observed are finches with different beaks.....and Moths with different coloured wings!!!!!!!!!:eek::D

If that is actually all you think we base our theory upon, then it is little wonder you have such difficulties with it. If you really think that this is an adequate or representative summary of the observations that support evolution then it can only be said that you have done insufficient research into the topic to debate it meaningfully. If that is the case I suggest you do that research.

If on the other hand you are seeking to brush the vast volumes of knowledge we now have under the carpet rather than facing and refuting them, then you are being utterly dishonest and frankly your input into this debate should be disregarded entirely.

J C wrote: »

My point was that Evolutionists ALSO believe (and have publicly stated) that Evolution and Abiogenesis are SPONTANEOUS......

Three people, quoted in an unknown context, with an ambiguous and unverifiable meaning, now speak for millions of scientists? Rubbish. That is a laughably simplistic notion.

J C wrote: »

…and you were working yourself into a sweat over me using the word SPONTANEOUS and Evolution in the one sentence........and demanding retribution from PDN, even though all I said, was what a Nobel Laureate Biochemist and Evolutionist had ALSO said about Abiogenesis/Evolution!!!!:):D

Again, rubbish.

Firstly, I was not disputing the use of “the word SPONTANEOUS and Evolution in the one sentence”. I was disputing the use of the term “spontaneous evolution”. It is a term that you invented to cast doubt upon the unrelated term “Darwinian evolution”. What your personal definition of “spontaneous evolution” might mean could be anyone’s guess. If in a statement you mean “Darwinian evolution”, use its name. If you mean abiogenesis, use its name. These are well-defined terms that can be researched and understood by any who wish to read.

Secondly, you have quoted three biologists, some from decades ago. They cannot be called to clarify their meaning, nor defend or retract their statements. In a scientific debate, these words have no relevance.

Third, we are not interested in their opinions, whatever they might actually mean. I have been asking you to clarify your position.

Fourth, do not for a moment pretend that when you began to use the term “spontaneous evolution” that you were quoting or paraphrasing these biologists. None of them used that term or that meaning. You are trying to shift responsibility for either your misunderstanding of evolution or your misrepresentation of it onto people who cannot defend themselves. Have the stones to tell us what you mean, what you say.

Finally, if you want to quote a biologist on abiogenesis and evolution, why not try quoting a living one. Try this one:

AtomicHorror wrote:

It is a common misconception that theory of evolution describes how species spontaneously differentiating into new species. The implication being that they somehow sprang forth unprompted and at random. This is not the case, as a spontaneous process is one which occurs without apparent external influence. Evolution, by contrast, is driven by four main processes of which three at least are distinctly non-spontaneous.

Natural selection is partially mediated by the environment, an enormous set of very apparent external influences. Genetic drift occurs when the external pressures of natural selection are removed. Mutation is often driven by environment too, through the influence of mutagens. Only gene flow does not appear to have an external component.

It is a greater misconception still that the theory of evolution describes the spontaneous emergence of life from lifelessness. This putative process is called abiogenesis and today it stands as a variety of “hypotheses”; testable ideas that might one day give rise to established theory. It is notable though, that of the candidate Theories of Life, none are spontaneous. For in all cases the matter and energy that became life did so through complex interaction with the external environment. Not randomly, but by following the laws of physics themselves.

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

You don't think people with technology in one field might have it in another? Or at the very least, have proved themselves to be capable of such?

Well of course it demonstrates basic capabilities which are transferable between media, such as imagination, facility with tools, architectural skills etc. I've no problem or argument with that.

But the technologies involved in static stone are vastly different from floating wood. It's like saying that building a stone pyramid would equip you to build a diesel engine.

I've seen first hand the kind of boats the Egyptian pyramid builders were constructing. They're mighty impressive creations, as you may already know... but light years away from your ark.

As I say, provide some evidence of relevant skills and projects and you might have something.

Galvasean

iUseVi wrote: »

You really that surprised?

Well yes TBH. I would expect someone who was ass militant about Creationism and the Bible as he to dismiss the taught of aliens.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. The Church from its inception held to a Young Earth interpretation.

It also held that its interpretation was inerrant.

You've rejected the inerrancy, which means that you accept that the churches beliefs are entirely fallible.

It is the Christian view.

There is no shortage of Christian views that were held as definitive and inerrant, until such times as people decried as heretics showed them to be wrong.

Thus, claiming that something has been historically "the" Christian view seems to be of little benefit. Indeed, given that the majority of Christians would seem to have abandoned it today would support the notion that the majority of Christians have accepted not only the possibility for errancy in this aspect of their historical beliefs, but have accepted that the evidence indicates it was, in fact, errant.

All other views have to set aside the historic understanding and explain why the Church was in ignorance about this 'truth' for so long.

Its quite simple.

Firstly, the church was in ignorance because everyone was in ignorance. You can't expect to know about something before it is discovered.

Secondly, the church was in ignorance after the discovery because it holds even more strongly to long-held beliefs then you have accused science of doing. Every admission of error is a thorn in the side of religion. As the evidence became more and more compelling, more and more people accepted that to hold to their previous beliefs was putting their fallible understanding of the message in the bible in the place of the inerrancy of the bible....which - as you yourself have effectively admitted - would be wrong.

2. Most Christians today are not Christian in the New Testament sense of the word.

Neither were most Christians in the past....but they're the church that you've just been using to defend your historical view.

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

Well of course it demonstrates basic capabilities which are transferable between media, such as imagination, facility with tools, architectural skills etc. I've no problem or argument with that.

But the technologies involved in static stone are vastly different from floating wood. It's like saying that building a stone pyramid would equip you to build a diesel engine.

I've seen first hand the kind of boats the Egyptian pyramid builders were constructing. They're mighty impressive creations, as you may already know... but light years away from your ark.

As I say, provide some evidence of relevant skills and projects and you might have something.

....read your OWN posting....where you have confirmed that the Ancient Egyptians possessed impressive boat-building skills AS WELL AS great stone-working skills!!!!!!:D

J C

MooseJam wrote: »

well how about something a bit more reasonable, like 50 lashes instead of an eternity burning in hell, it's hardly a reasonable punishment for most sins

....I guess it illustrates just how seriously God views ALL sin.
A Holy God cannot tolerate ANY sin ......and so He has determined that ALL sin must be fully punished........some by an eternity in Hell for the un-repentent perpetrators.....and the rest by Jesus Christ atoning for ALL of the sins of those who believe on Him!!!

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

....read your OWN posting....where you have confirmed that the Ancient Egyptians possessed impressive boat-building skills AS WELL AS great stone-working skills!!!!!!:D

Yes, and I also pointed out that their best efforts were light years away from the requirements of your arc.

Being good at something doesn't enable you to achieve the impossible. A large part of competence is understanding the limitations of yourself, your tools and your materials. Limitations are not in your vocabulary it would seem. "Of course they could build an arc, their near-contemporaries built a pyramid didn't they?
:rolleyes:

Sorry to say this but you sound more and more desperate and stupid the longer this thread runs. And believe me, given where you started from that's some achievement.

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Did I read right or did J C state one of the reason he is Christian is that the aliens told him to be?

.....Aliens didn't tell me to be a Christian.....I made that decision myself!!!!!