The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

ISAW wrote: »

Not alone that but the list of 299 "atheists" seems to be people who argue against JC. He obviously has no evidence that these 299 people are atheists . I am aware that some of them are but certainly not all of them! Where does he get off deciding everyone who disagrees with him must be "atheist"?

...see my previous answer here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64873221&postcount=21719

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
I am debating with nearly 300 Atheists / Evolutionists on this thread

ISAW
i would suggest most of them were. Where is you r proof that 299 atheists you claim are indeed atheists?

...It would help if you quoted me accurately in the first place.
I didn't say they were all Atheists ... I said that they were Atheists / Evolutionists i.e. Atheists and/or Evolutionists (who have opposed me in this debate).

They certainly showed no Creationist tendencies, that I was aware of!!!:eek:

... so is there anybody on the first list who didn't oppose me in this debate and who isn't an Atheist or an Evolutionist?

ISAW

J C wrote: »

...I didn't do so ... every Atheist I know is an Evolutionist ... and many claim that it allows them to be intellectually satisfied Atheists.

There you go again identifying evolution with atheism!

If every atheist you know liked cars would you refer to all car lovers as atheists/car lovers?

Or how about if all atheists you knew were scientists would you call all scientists " atheist/scientists"?

All swans are white till you see a black one. You begin with
P all atheists are evolutionists
is if somehow if people note
Q ISAW is an evolutionist

That people will think it logically implies

R Isaw is an atheist.


It doesn't!

I also know many Theists who are also Evolutionists ... and the first list is made up of the posters who were either Atheists and/or Evolutionists (including Theistic Evolutionists) who have always opposed me in their postings on this thread.

In other words all teh people who DISAGREE WITH YOU you have classified with atheists!

The second list was people who supported me, remained neutral in the debate or who opposed me on some issues and supported me on others.

In other words all the people who do not criticise you are not classified with atheists! Rather telling that.

J C

ISAW wrote: »

There you go again identifying evolution with atheism!

...but Materialistic Evolution is identifiable with Atheism ... it is a core belief of Atheists ... and as leading Atheists keep reminding us, it allows them to be intellectually satisfied Atheists.

It is equally valid to identify Creation Science and Creationism with Judaeo-christianity.

ISAW wrote: »

If every atheist you know liked cars would you refer to all car lovers as atheists/car lovers?
Or how about if all atheists you knew were scientists would you call all scientists " atheist/scientists"?

... but neither of these situations apply as all Atheists don't love cars and they aren't all scientifically qualified ... and leading Atheists don't claim that car loving or science makes them feel Intellectually satisfied ... although they are getting close to the latter, due to the atheistic bias that has been allowed to creep into the definition and practice of science ... and the fact that they are increasingly calling for all Christians to 'leave their faith (and ethics) outside the doors of the lab' ... and in some cases, they are arguing that Christians aren't suitable for promotion to senior positions within the scientific hierarchy due to their Theism!!!

ISAW wrote: »

All swans are white till you see a black one. You begin with
P all atheists are evolutionists
is if somehow if people note
Q ISAW is an evolutionist

That people will think it logically implies

R Isaw is an atheist.


It doesn't!

... please give people some credit for using their logical faculties ... as you correctly pointed out, the fact that all Atheists are Evolutioniists doesn't imply that all Evolutionists are Atheists ... but it is nonetheless an important and interesting fact that All Atheists are Evolutionists ... while the reverse isn't the case.

ISAW wrote: »

In other words all teh people who DISAGREE WITH YOU you have classified with atheists!

... I classified them as Atheists (and / or) Evolutionists ... ( which I abbreviated to Atheists/Evolutionists).

ISAW wrote: »

In other words all the people who do not criticise you are not classified with atheists! Rather telling that.

... I have classified my consistent opponents as Atheists and/or Evolutionists ... and I am unaware of any Atheist who has supported or agreed with me ... if there is I would like them to identify themselves. It is therefore a fact that everybody who agreed with me was a Theist.

Equally, I am unware of anybody who has consistently opposed me who isn't either an Atheist or an Evolutionist. Again, if there is anybody who isn't either an Atheist or an Evolutionist who has consistently opposed me, I would like them to identify themselves.

Stop nit picking and engaging in semantics ... when you know that what I have said is correct in both fact and opinion.

The Mad Hatter

ISAW wrote: »

Not alone that but the list of 299 "atheists" seems to be people who argue against JC.

More to the point: people who have, at some stage, argued with J C (including the very suspicious Gryphonboy). Many people on that list have only made a post or two.

pts

I'm on the list! I feel very special now.

PDN

Moderator's Note:

Linking disparate groups together by a slash (/) is not considered acceptable in this forum. I would ask all atheists/morons and creationists/rapists to please refrain from doing this in future.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... thanks for the tip.

I have now discovered that the total number of threads that have ever been started on the Christianity Forum are 2,151 to be precise ... but, could I point out that threads that haven't been accessed for more than 2 months are pretty well dormant.

Either way, isn't it amazing that this one thread has more than twice the hits of ALL of the other currently active threads on the Christianity Forum combined?
Indeed the 555 thousand hits on the The Bible Creationism and Prophecy thread matches the TOTAL hits on the most recently active 473 threads on the Christianity Forum i.e. every thread that has had a posting since last July!!!

I am debating with nearly 300 Atheists / Evolutionists on this thread ... and the thread that I am debating them on has 473 times the number of hits of an average Christianity Forum Thread!!!!

Like I have already said, these are amazing figures ... but I fear that their import is totaly lost on many people ... and the 'mainstream' Churches will continue to haemorrage members to apostacy and Bible-believing Churches in equal measure.:)

I don't know. There is a crazy drunk who sits at the top of the road I work on who spends most of his day shouting at people as they go passed. He has been there for years. By your logic he is carrying out very important work that we should be impressed by

Considering your "debating" consists on you repeating over and over the same false misrepresentations its not like what you are doing his hard, though I suppose your dogged determination to not listen to anyone or anything is impressive.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't know. There is a crazy drunk who sits at the top of the road I work on who spends most of his day shouting at people as they go passed. He has been there for years. By your logic he is carrying out very important work that we should be impressed by

Do people engage with this crazy drunk and encourge him?

J C

pts wrote: »

I'm on the list! I feel very special now.

....I see ... opposing Christians 'floats your boat'??:D:)

Be still and know that every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't know. There is a crazy drunk who sits at the top of the road I work on who spends most of his day shouting at people as they go passed. He has been there for years.

... "Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile" is all I will say to that!!!:(:eek:

...and are you never tempted to get assistance for this obviously distressed poor man ... who sounds like he is a danger to himself or others???

... I have seen many alcoholics and drug addicts come to Jesus Christ and be Saved ... and the transformation in their lives and their minds has always been dramatic.

J C

JimiTime wrote: »

Do people engage with this crazy drunk and encourge him?

...does anybody ever reach out in Christian love and compassion to this man ??

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

More to the point: people who have, at some stage, argued with J C (including the very suspicious Gryphonboy). Many people on that list have only made a post or two.

... so what ... Goliath tried to kill David only once as well !!!:eek::D

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... so what ... Goliath tried to kill David only once as well !!!:eek::D

Yes, but David had ammunition. You've got nothing.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yes, but David had ammunition. You've got nothing.

...with God on my side who can stand against me?

... nobody!!!:eek:

... yes, David had a small pebble and a sling ... and I have the Word of God and Science!!!:D

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Do people engage with this crazy drunk and encourge him?

No, though I think you have slightly missed my point. I'm not comparing JC to a crazy drunk who spouts nonsense all day (though now you mention it ...). I'm simply pointing out the ridiculousness of the logic JC is using to measure the important of his posts

J C

ISAW wrote: »

Not alone that but the list of 299 "atheists" seems to be people who argue against JC. He obviously has no evidence that these 299 people are atheists . I am aware that some of them are but certainly not all of them! Where does he get off deciding everyone who disagrees with him must be "atheist"?

...I said that a combination of Atheists and Evolutionists were debating with me ... which is true.
Why are you getting so 'up tight' about being associated with Atheists anyway?

Could I remind you that Atheists are usually nice respectable people ... indeed some of my best friends are Atheists!!!

I don't share their worldview and I don't accept their 'origins explanation' ... but I respect them as intelligent and likeable people.

I don't know why the fact that my opposition on this thread is a combination of Atheists and various Evolutionists should cause offense to any of the Atheists or the Theistic Evolutionists who are finding common cause in their opposition to me.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

No, though I think you have slightly missed my point. I'm not comparing JC to a crazy drunk who spouts nonsense all day (though now you mention it ...). I'm simply pointing out the ridiculousness of the logic JC is using to measure the important of his posts

I agree that the number of postings alone, doesn't prove the quality of the posts ... however, the number of hits does prove their quality ... as other people will quickly conclude that it is not worth their while re-visiting a thread that has people spouting nonesense on it ... and over half a million hits proves that this thread is competently addressing the 'origins issue'... and many other issues of Christian Doctrine and Scripture as well.

... so take a bow ... everyone, for your contribution to this World-beating thread!!!:D

J C

J C wrote: »

I don't know why the fact that my opposition on this thread is a combination of Atheists and various Evolutionists should cause offense to any of the Atheists or the Theistic Evolutionists who are finding common cause in their opposition to me.

This does, of course raise valid questions about the compatibility of a belief in Evolution with, for example, a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Could I emphasise that I am not saying that a Christian cannot be an Evolutionist ... quite clearly there are many Chrisitans who are Evolutionists ... but there are serious issues that could be profitably examined in relation to how a belief in Evolution can be reconciled with the Christian Faith.:)

I would like to hear how, for example, Theistic Evolutionists reconcile a belief in Evolution with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture

Ghost Buster

J C wrote: »

I agree that the number of postings alone, doesn't prove the quality of the posts ... however, the number of hits does prove their quality ... as other people will quickly conclude that it is not worth their while re-visiting a thread that has people spouting nonesense on it ... and over half a million hits proves that this thread is competently addressing the 'origins issue'... and many other issues of Christian Doctrine and Scripture as well.

... so take a bow ... everyone, for your contribution to this World-beating thread!!!:D

however, the number of hits does prove their quality ...
And so by this logic Crystal Swing are somewhere up there with Motzart and The Beatles. Ok!!!!

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

I think we moderators display a high level of tolerance for your antics in this thread. But, to be honest, labelling some of your fellow Christians as "atheists/evolutionists" is a piece of muppetry too far. Please never do that again if you wish to keep on posting here.

I think we have a misunderstanding here. One could take atheists/evolutionists to refer to people who were both atheists and evolutionists, or to refer to people who were either atheists or evolutionists.

I normally take a slash to mean or. And from familiarity with JC's posts, I am certain he meant the latter.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

I have literally hundreds of times.

You reject them all because they are not "big enough" changes, and then refuse to define, in the context of the organism we are discussing, what would be a big enough change and more importantly justify why that amount of accumulative changes is valid for evolution but a little less wouldn't be.

I swear if I did actually show you an organism like Ardi evolve into an organism like a human in an observable time frame you would say something stupid like "Well they are still apes aren't they! One ape changes into a different type of apes, they are still apes. How is that evolution?!?!"

It is quite obvious you have no serious interest in this. Trying to prove to you evolution happens is like someone saying to a Christian Unless I see Jesus on the cross it didn't happen

So put me to the test. Show me your observed change that is observably quite different from the original.

Something most of us would say, 'Hey, that's not an ......!' To which you say, 'Well, we bred many generations of ...... and this is what we came out with.'

Observed macro-evolution. Not longer ears or shorter legs or loss of wings.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

He is not asking for evidence, we can give him evidence. He is asking to physically observe it happening.

Did you physically observe Jesus on the cross?

Correction - it was YOU who said evolution had been observed. I am well aware of evolutionist interpretations of the evidence, just as I am of creationists interpretations of the same evidence. But I never heard of any actual observations of evolution.

And I hardly need to remind you we were talking of macro-evolution, the large scale changes in organisms, rather than the small scale changes dogs, birds, etc. manifest in a generation of so.

wolfsbane

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

An atheist can believe we were put here by a God, but so many religions claim creation, it would be impossible to tell which one is true.

Yes, if all we had to go on was their assertions. However, we have two witnesses to the true God immediately available, so that we are without excuse: the heavens reveal His power and godhead, and our consciences confirm there is the One to whom we must give account.

Of course, we naturally suppress such unwelcome information. Even when God speaks to us strongly in our consciences, we evade Him. The impossibility in belief comes not from ignorance of the facts, but from hostility to them.

The (true) Christian is one whom the Spirit of God has convinced, and one to whom He has imparted repentance and faith.

wolfsbane

ISAW wrote: »

And there you go again presenting a false dichotomy.

Most Christians accept the theory of evolution! Accepting evolution ISN'T a denial of God! It isn't a case of choosing one or the other. Only Biblical fundamentalists like you think this way because they believe the Earth and Universe is about 6,000 years or so old because they believe God created it then. Most Christians DON'T believe as you believe!

Evolution is based on observation of the world around us coupled with objective measurement and empirical evidence. Your idea is based on your interpretation of the Bible mixed with pseudo science !

Let me recommend again this latest - from widely respected Christians - on the very subject:
Should Christians Embrace Evolution?
http://shouldchristiansembraceevolution.com/

Note not only the contributors but also those who have written commendations:
http://shouldchristiansembraceevolution.com/commendations

Both the scientists and the theologians who contributed are hardly the ignoramuses you imply.

Sea Sharp

I'm a bit of a late comer to this thread, (and there's not a chance in hell I'm reading through the previous posts), what is the general opinion of the Daniel prophecies by the Christians in here?

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I never heard of any actual observations of evolution. And I hardly need to remind you we were talking of macro-evolution, the large scale changes in organisms, rather than the small scale changes dogs, birds, etc. manifest in a generation of so.

Are you seriously asking us to provide evidence of a dog becoming a cat (or some kind of equivalent change) in our observation window? We will be unable to provide that, simply because it doesn't happen.

1. A large-scale change from poodle to Manx would pretty much allow us to throw evolutionary theory out the window.
2. The time-scales needed are huge.
3. And how do you think we peg the exact generation event where dog becomes cat? You don't get a dog from a cat, you get a slightly more cat-like offspring from slightly more dog-like parents. And there are many observable instances of offspring changes towards a different phenotype that might preclude them from being part of whatever "kind" you assign them.

I can't believe, after the excellent post about how we classify stuff, that you are still insisting that the fly I showed you is a fly. It doesn't have wings i.e. it's not a fly. Moreover, it's a fairly content fly and one able to reproduce readily.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Are you seriously asking us to provide evidence of a dog becoming a cat (or some kind of equivalent change) in our observation window? We will be unable to provide that, simply because it doesn't happen.

... what you are saying about current observations is remarkably similar to what Prof Stephen J Gould said about the 'fossil record' and I quote
"Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
...and I am then accused of 'quote mining' when the reality is that scientists NEVER see the process of 'Evolution from Pondkind to Mankind' ... and instead they use a combination of wishful thinking and unfounded extrapolation to reach their conclusion that Mankind could have been 'spontaneously produced' without God ... and the Theistic Evolutionists 'swallow' this piece of pernicious tautology without apparently realising that not only has it no scientific validity, it also undrmines the entire foundation of Christianity (the reality of a Direct Creator God called Jesus Christ) ... and it has been deliberately thought up and promoted by generations of Atheists to do so!!! :eek:

doctoremma wrote: »

1. A large-scale change from poodle to Manx would pretty much allow us to throw evolutionary theory out the window.
2. The time-scales needed are huge.
3. And how do you think we peg the exact generation event where dog becomes cat? You don't get a dog from a cat, you get a slightly more cat-like offspring from slightly more dog-like parents. And there are many observable instances of offspring changes towards a different phenotype that might preclude them from being part of whatever "kind" you assign them.

I can't believe, after the excellent post about how we classify stuff, that you are still insisting that the fly I showed you is a fly. It doesn't have wings i.e. it's not a fly. Moreover, it's a fairly content fly and one able to reproduce readily.

... so a fly that loses its wings isn't a fly???
... using this logic, then a dog that loses its tail isn't a Dog!!! :eek::):D

Is this the latest 'cutting edge' Evolutionist 'science'!???!!!:eek::):D

J C

J C wrote: »

This does, of course raise valid questions about the compatibility of a belief in Evolution with, for example, a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Could I emphasise that I am not saying that a Christian cannot be an Evolutionist ... quite clearly there are many Chrisitans who are Evolutionists ... but there are serious issues that could be profitably examined in relation to how a belief in Evolution can be reconciled with the Christian Faith.:)

I would like to hear how, for example, Theistic Evolutionists reconcile a belief in Evolution with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture

... as has happened numerous times on this thread ... all we get is silence from the Theistic Evolutionists when they are asked to justify their unfounded scientific position from a Biblical / Theological perspective!!!

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

... so a fly that loses its wings isn't a fly???
...presumably then a dog that loses its tail isn't a Dog

In fairness, it's not called a wag.