The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Steviemak

Wolfsbane - I just stumbled upon this thread. Its amazing what science has given us i.e. the way we can communicate. But I guess you believe in science only when it suits you.

I suggest you set up a commune and live off the land and let the rest of us enjoy the modern world like Jesus would have wanted i.e. to continuely better ourselves. Most normal christians are very comfortable with evolution including the Catholic Church. Don't attempt to speak for the rest of us.

But I am not arguing with you as you are never going to change your views on anything. Ignorance is bliss in your eyes. Thank God the rest of us have progressed beyond burning people at stakes if we don't like what they say.

Flamed Diving

Steviemak wrote: »

Wolfsbane - I just stumbled upon this thread. Its amazing what science has given us i.e. the way we can communicate. But I guess you believe in science only when it suits you.

I suggest you set up a commune and live off the land and let the rest of us enjoy the modern world like Jesus would have wanted i.e. to continuely better ourselves. Most normal christians are very comfortable with evolution including the Catholic Church. Don't attempt to speak for the rest of us.

But I am not arguing with you as you are never going to change your views on anything. Ignorance is bliss in your eyes. Thank God the rest of us have progressed beyond burning people at stakes if we don't like what they say.

I do find the blatant hypocrisy quite amusing at times.

Standman

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for your attempt. It fails, however, because it fails to see that my knowledge of God is not a matter of ascribing things to God, assuming Him to be the cause. It is rather having Him reveal Himself to my spirit. I know His character as well as I know my wife's, better even.

To restate it: your equation of supernatural with unknown is false. Many people have knowledge of the supernatural, eg., every true Christian.

So are you saying that had you not read the Bible you would still "know" that the Christian God revealed himself to you?

[EDIT]

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it is just evolutionists drawing the conclusion from the supposed fact that we originated as dirt and are just more sophisticated versions of it, given that the Biblical account of man's nature has been disproven. If I believed in evolution, I would concur. Why some of you think you can elevate man to a sacred status, I can't see - other than your conscience telling you it is so.

*Conscience is honest, being given by God.* Its message can be distorted by our evil hearts, of course, and we can sear it by continual abuse so that it can barely whisper as we slaughter the innocent.

*Mine is informed by the word of God and by His Spirit*, so is healthy. By I don't look to it as a final rule - the word of God helps me guard against self-deception.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that your conscience was informed by the word of God and his spirit, and you trust your conscience because it was given by god?

thebaldsoprano

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:
I appreciate the attempt at humour by evolutionary loons - but I get my biggist laughs from their serious stuff. :D:D

And I quite like Father Ted :D:D

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thanks for your attempt. It fails, however, because it fails to see that my knowledge of God is not a matter of ascribing things to God, assuming Him to be the cause. It is rather having Him reveal Himself to my spirit. I know His character as well as I know my wife's, better even.

To restate it: your equation of supernatural with unknown is false. Many people have knowledge of the supernatural, eg., every true Christian.

Him revealing himself to your spirit sounds nice Wolfsbane but it is a totally meaningless statement since the state or nature of your spirit is undefined and untestable, just as He, and any action such as revealing something, is unknown and untestable.

Put it another way you don't know he revealed himself to your spirit, nor do you have any ability to examine if that actually happened or not.

You have no capacity to test or examine any of that.

You simply believe that it is true as a matter of wishful thinking because it sounds nice.

Which is meaningless in any proper sense. It might make you feel fuzzy and warm inside, but that is it.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it is just evolutionists drawing the conclusion from the supposed fact that we originated as dirt and are just more sophisticated versions of it, given that the Biblical account of man's nature has been disproven.

Anyone drawing such a conclusion is not drawing it from Evolution. It does not have anything to do with the origin of life.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If I believed in evolution, I would concur. Why some of you think you can elevate man to a sacred status, I can't see - other than your conscience telling you it is so.

I did not say that Evolution allows us to elevate man to sacred status, only that it says nothing to contradict the notion that humans are sacred. The concept is meaningless to science and thus not its concern.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Conscience is honest, being given by God. Its message can be distorted by our evil hearts, of course, and we can sear it by continual abuse so that it can barely whisper as we slaughter the innocent.

You have no way of knowing for sure that your conscience is anything other than your desires tempered by arbitrary constraints. A book tells you that God gave you this central imperative, that's all that you know.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mine is informed by the word of God and by His Spirit, so is healthy. By I don't look to it as a final rule - the word of God helps me guard against self-deception.

Unless the word of God is a deception. Imagine for a moment that it is, how would you verify that?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I appreciate the attempt at humour by evolutionary loons - but I get my biggist laughs from their serious stuff. :D:D

Have you ever read an evolutionary biology paper? Truth or lies, if you found it funny I can only assume you misread some of the words.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, it is just evolutionists drawing the conclusion from the supposed fact that we originated as dirt and are just more sophisticated versions of it

Think you are getting a bit confused there Wolfsbane

Genesis 2.7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The Bible teaches that man is formed from the "dust of the ground" (dirt). Evolution teaches nothing of the sort. Biology teaches that the dirt of the ground is largely composed of dead organic matter, so it is in fact the reversal, the dirt is made of us.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mine is informed by the word of God and by His Spirit, so is healthy. By I don't look to it as a final rule - the word of God helps me guard against self-deception.

Well that is a bit tricky, because you claim your conscience tells you that the "word of God" (ie the Bible) is correct in the first place.

Seems like you are in a bit of a feed back loop. You keep your conscience in check with the Bible and you justify the Bible with your conscience. If either are wrong or heaven forbid lying to you, you are kinda lost.

thebaldsoprano

Steviemak wrote: »

Most normal christians are very comfortable with evolution including the Catholic Church.

Jeepers, showing my ignorance here but I didn't know that at all...
Thanks for pointing this out!

Asiaprod was right about this thread being something of a goldmine.

AtomicHorror

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

Jeepers, showing my ignorance here but I didn't know that at all...
Thanks for pointing this out!

Asiaprod was right about this thread being something of a goldmine.

Creationism is largely confined to conservative Christian groups that follow a literalistic interpretation of the bible. Still means a whole load of Americans, but generally not much else.

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Creationism is largely confined to conservative Christian groups that follow a literalistic interpretation of the bible. Still means a whole load of Americans, but generally not much else.

Lets just hope your article doesn't give them any ideas

thebaldsoprano

AtomicHorror wrote: »

One topic, a recent-ish bit of satire regarding the Discovery Institutes latest big project:

http://nakedloon.com/sci-tech/2008/07/10/discovery-institute-takes-on-gravity-myth/

Just talking to a Discovery Institute insider and apparently a debunking of electromagnetism is in the pipeline...

Details posted in the comments section of the article

wolfsbane

Steviemak wrote: »

Wolfsbane - I just stumbled upon this thread. Its amazing what science has given us i.e. the way we can communicate. But I guess you believe in science only when it suits you.

I suggest you set up a commune and live off the land and let the rest of us enjoy the modern world like Jesus would have wanted i.e. to continuely better ourselves. Most normal christians are very comfortable with evolution including the Catholic Church. Don't attempt to speak for the rest of us.

But I am not arguing with you as you are never going to change your views on anything. Ignorance is bliss in your eyes. Thank God the rest of us have progressed beyond burning people at stakes if we don't like what they say.

Hi, Steviemak.

1. No, I endeavour believe in science when it is true. Sometimes I believed in it when it was not - and had to change my beliefs when science admitted it had got it wrong. The Creation/Evolution issue is one where most scientists believe they have the truth sussed - but they believed that about others issues too, only to have a change of mind. That, together with my primary belief in the Biblical account, allows me to be an a-evolutionist.

2. Many of the scientific discoveries were by Christians who held to the biblical account, so we can't be accused of being anti-science.

3. I of course don't attempt to speak for the mass of professing Christianity - in fact, I have made it clear that I do not regard them as Christian at all, since they have departed from the faith taught in the Bible on many issues, not just Creation.

4. I have changed my views on several issues over time, but it takes a Biblical argument to make me do so. Evolutionists, even the Theistic type, have none. They exchange the truth of God for the opinions of man, becoming blissfully ignorant of the truth that glorifies God and humbles man.

5. Funny you should mention people burning at the stakes. My spiritual forebears were so treated by those who hated them for their rejection of the received consensus. Now Creationists only get ridiculed, misrepresented, discriminated against and fired - no stakes yet.

But evolutionists have been the main practitioners of mass-murder in this past century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. And they are the cheer-leaders of the mass-murder of the abortion industry. And are now behind the movement for a massive world population cull. Your enlightenment is in reality a darkening of the spirit.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Creationism is largely confined to conservative Christian groups that follow a literalistic interpretation of the bible. Still means a whole load of Americans, but generally not much else.

You should check the Creationists sites to see the world-wide existence of Creationism.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. And they are the cheer-leaders of the mass-murder of the abortion industry. And are now behind the movement for a massive world population cull. Your enlightenment is in reality a darkening of the spirit.

Hitler and Stalin were Christians. Its little wonder they came to the conclusion that mass murder was the answer after reading about God's past methods. I bet Hitler wished that He had control over the tides, eh?

:pac:

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Think you are getting a bit confused there Wolfsbane

Genesis 2.7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The Bible teaches that man is formed from the "dust of the ground" (dirt). Evolution teaches nothing of the sort. Biology teaches that the dirt of the ground is largely composed of dead organic matter, so it is in fact the reversal, the dirt is made of us.



Well that is a bit tricky, because you claim your conscience tells you that the "word of God" (ie the Bible) is correct in the first place.

Seems like you are in a bit of a feed back loop. You keep your conscience in check with the Bible and you justify the Bible with your conscience. If either are wrong or heaven forbid lying to you, you are kinda lost.

Let me put it simpler for you then: the Bible teaches our bodies came from inorganic matter - the dust of the ground. But those bodies received a spirit from God, so man is body and spirit.

Evolution teaches we came from inorganic matter, and that our organic state is just a variation of that and no more. No room for a spirit, just very complicated chemical reactions.

As to conscience and the Bible, the bit you are missing is the spirit. Conscience and the Bible both inform the spirit, the spirit obeys or ignores them.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hitler and Stalin were Christians. Its little wonder they came to the conclusion that mass murder was the answer after reading about God's past methods. I bet Hitler wished that He had control over the tides, eh?

:pac:

It is evident you have read nothing of, or about, either of these men. Just think about it - a Christian leading the Soviet Union in its persecution of all religion! :pac::pac::pac:

Hitler was born a Roman Catholic, Stalin a Orthodox - but what they were by the time they became leaders was something utterly different.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Have you ever read an evolutionary biology paper? Truth or lies, if you found it funny I can only assume you misread some of the words.

I have read several of the less-detailed ones - on Talk.Origins, etc. The summary arguments, the big picture presented is the main source of my amusement. But I do get a kick or two from seeing their response to embarrassing discoveries:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2491

wolfsbane

Standman wrote: »

So are you saying that had you not read the Bible you would still "know" that the Christian God revealed himself to you?

[EDIT]



Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that your conscience was informed by the word of God and his spirit, and you trust your conscience because it was given by god?

1. No - or rather, I must hear His word by some means, reading it myself, or having it told to me.

2. Yes to both. But the danger is that we mistake our sinful hearts for our conscience, so we need to check what we think is conscience speaking, and the only infallible check is the word of God.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You should check the Creationists sites to see the world-wide existence of Creationism.

I have no doubt that the movement is worldwide. I merely suggest that it is predominantly a conservative American movement. It has not flourished on anything resembling that scale elsewhere.

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. No, I endeavour believe in science when it is true. Sometimes I believed in it when it was not - and had to change my beliefs when science admitted it had got it wrong. The Creation/Evolution issue is one where most scientists believe they have the truth sussed - but they believed that about others issues too, only to have a change of mind. That, together with my primary belief in the Biblical account, allows me to be an a-evolutionist.

You see our willingness to accept the truth of our errors as a weakness. That says it all really.

Tell me though, which of the big theories (aside from Evolution of course), have we been forced to abandon? I can recall periods of crisis from my history of science, but in the last couple of hundred years, the community has learned to adopt only the most robust models as theory. Perhaps you feel like the science presented in the media is rigid and self contradictory. Unsurprising, since the mainstream interpretations of modern science are very much flawed. Perhaps we are partially to blame for not engaging properly with the public, for remaining too aloof.

wolfsbane wrote: »

2. Many of the scientific discoveries were by Christians who held to the biblical account, so we can't be accused of being anti-science.

I wonder how many of them would accept evolution if shown the data? Impossible to know. Please don't feel like you can claim good scientists to your cause, were they alive today I would guess that many of them would fail your "true Christian" test. The main criteria seems to be abandonment of human reason in favour of dogma.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But evolutionists have been the main practitioners of mass-murder in this past century: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. And they are the cheer-leaders of the mass-murder of the abortion industry. And are now behind the movement for a massive world population cull. Your enlightenment is in reality a darkening of the spirit.

We've heard this rubbish before. Evolution is not a moral philosophy. Christianity is, yet evils are still done in its name. Are you responsible, is any Christian responsible for the Crusades? Of course not.

"Evolutionists" do not constitute a conspiracy that conveniently believes in everything you fear. There are plenty of pro-life scientists out there. Plenty of "evolutionists" opposed to euthanasia.

And since you mention him, Hitler claimed to believe in Evolution, but he also claimed to believe in Jesus too.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Him revealing himself to your spirit sounds nice Wolfsbane but it is a totally meaningless statement since the state or nature of your spirit is undefined and untestable, just as He, and any action such as revealing something, is unknown and untestable.

Put it another way you don't know he revealed himself to your spirit, nor do you have any ability to examine if that actually happened or not.

You have no capacity to test or examine any of that.

You simply believe that it is true as a matter of wishful thinking because it sounds nice.

Which is meaningless in any proper sense. It might make you feel fuzzy and warm inside, but that is it.

You are confusing what is unknown to you with what is unknown to me. We differ in our ignorance, and in our enlightenment. I know something - Someone - you do not.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have read several of the less-detailed ones - on Talk.Origins, etc. The summary arguments, the big picture presented is the main source of my amusement. But I do get a kick or two from seeing their response to embarrassing discoveries:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2491

Hardly embarrasing. If the findings that CMI cited truly did represent a falsification of the old earth hypothesis, then we'd be finding heme, protein and DNA in pretty much every fossil going, not in just the incredibly rare and unusual examples. Even your CMI man seems to have grasped the edge of that concept:

Carl Wieland wrote:

Note—I would not claim that the preservation proves the millions of years is wrong, but it strongly suggests it, and it is certainly more consistent with the belief that the fossil is only thousands of years old.

If the Earth were a mere few thousand years old, the sequencing of full dinosaur genomes would be trivial since, as your man points out, DNA will persist for up to 100,000 years. We can barely pull together the scraps needed to identify a couple of dinosaur proteins out of tens of thousands in just one species out of hundreds. Enough for some bioinformatic analyses, but we certainly aren't going to clone the T rex any time soon, if ever.

And even if such findings were common, and we found ourselves cloning dinosaurs, we have to remember that the vast weight of other evidence contradicts the notion that the fossils are mere thousands of years old. We have confidence in these many methods and would require extraordinary proof to abandon them.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You are confusing what is unknown to you with what is unknown to me. We differ in our ignorance, and in our enlightenment. I know something - Someone - you do not.

And how do you know what that Someone is? How do you validate its motives, its reality or its separateness from your own mind? By following a system which denies you the right to your own reason, you have means to do any of these things.

Standman

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. No - or rather, I must hear His word by some means, reading it myself, or having it told to me.

So god waited until you read the bible until he revealed himself to you? Ok, fair enough!

wolfsbane wrote: »

2. Yes to both. But the danger is that we mistake our sinful hearts for our conscience, so we need to check what we think is conscience speaking, and the only infallible check is the word of God.

Circular reasoning is an anti-explaination.

J C

robindch wrote: »

.......... A circular belief ain't worth jack, I'm afraid. Here's how it works:



Enjoy!

.......LOL.....I did enjoy it....... it describes the Evolutionist Faith PERFECTLY.......especially the big 'windy twisty bits' !!!:pac::):D

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, no metaphor that I can think of could be used as the model in a directive.

The passage is made distinctly unambiguous by the later use of it by Christ and the apostles. They remove the possibility of a non-historico-grammatical understanding.

One of course could say they were mistaken; but not if one holds to the Bible being the word of God.

........equally, because Jesus is God....He is therefore infallible.

......while some Christians may not exclusively hold to the Bible on all matters .....no true Christian believes that Jesus wasn't God .......and therefore ALL true Christians believe that His pronouncements as recorded in the Bible are true and infallible!!!!!:D

J C

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Hitler and Stalin were Christians. Its little wonder they came to the conclusion that mass murder was the answer after reading about God's past methods. I bet Hitler wished that He had control over the tides, eh?

:pac:

....Stalin and Hitler were Satanically inspired Anti-Christs of the first order........who killed the best part of 50 million people between them!!!!:eek:

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

.......... Hitler claimed to believe in Evolution, but he also claimed to believe in Jesus too.

..........the demons ALSO believe that Jesus exists..........and this causes them to tremble.......at the fate that awaits them.....see Jas 2:19.

It is unfortunately too late for the demons to change their destiny......but it is not too late for ANY living person to do so.......

......so I would seriously urge EVERYONE to repent and trust on the Lord Jesus Christ to save them.......

........yesterday was the last opportunity to be saved for over 150,000 people who died today!!!!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....Stalin and Hitler were Satanically inspired Anti-Christs of the first order........who killed the best part of 50 million people between them!!!!:eek:

We could just as easily claim the same of any science-inspired despots. Hitler still believed in Jesus throughout his time as a dictator and purveyor of genocide. He even mutilated the christian notion of "kinds" as part of his justification of eugenics. Let's face it, crackpots like him used any and all sciences, philosophies and religious beliefs cobbled together simply to justify what they wanted to do anyway.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

..........the demons ALSO believe that Jesus exists..........and this causes them to tremble.......at the fate that awaits them.....see Jas 2:19.

Demons defy God. Whereas Hitler said:

Hitler wrote:

For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.

He also re-stated his Catholicism in his adulthood, and said of the persectution of the Jews:

Hitler wrote:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Even when I was Catholic, I found these sentiments abhorrent. Nor do I consider them a valid reflection of Christianity now.