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)
Comments
-
... The whole Darwinian proposal is wishful thinking ... it has no plausible mechanism ... and no logical basis!!!
... so Darwinism has had no effect on Saved Christians ... or anybody else who looks at the lack of evidence for it!!!:D
What?? I can't quite make sense of this.
I wasn't talking about plausible mechanisms or the logical basis of the Darwinian proposal.
You said that Christianity and Darwinism (which I guess is your word for not believing in any form of creator) are polar opposites.
I'm disagreeing. That's all.
The reason I'm disagreeing is that I believe Christianity is more linked to the word/morality of Christ than the Genisis myth and that any polar opposite to Christianity would have to go against these.0 -
-
StealthRolex wrote: »Oh, so the ESB or whoever supplies the lecky has nothing to do with it? I thought the energy was there all the time but nothing could happen until the energy was let in through the switch.
Guess I've been reading the wrong books on physics and electronics.
What?
Did you read my post? I said switching on the computer supplies it with electrical energy?StealthRolex wrote: »So the sun doesn't use nuclear power. Just gravity?
The nuclear fusion inside a sun is caused initially by gravitational forces, it is the heat from the gravity that causes nuclear fusion to startStealthRolex wrote: »Back on the computer again. Do they just assemble themselves with no design and no designer or does someone figure out and plan how to put them together? The first computer like - did someone put a bunch of components into a box and throw them around until a computer fell together somehow?
You apparently aren't reading my posts at all. I was talking about genetic algorithms which are software, not hardware.
Computer hardware is not self replicating. Computer software can be, and as such can evolve.StealthRolex wrote: »I've kinda figured theat the Earth, sun and eventually life actually resulted from teh big bang already. But what caused the big bang?
How do you know anything caused the big bang? If time began with the big bang and causality requires time then you are asking what caused causality.StealthRolex wrote: »BTW isn't hypothesis and postulation scientific guesswork until there is evidence and proof leading to a theory or the hypothesis is disproven and the next guess comes in to play?
Yes it is. Which is why scientists don't proclaim string theory to be true the way religious people proclaim the bible to be because it "feels right"0 -
I wasn't talking about plausible mechanisms or the logical basis of the Darwinian proposal.
You said that Christianity and Darwinism (which I guess is your word for not believing in any form of creator) are polar opposites.The reason I'm disagreeing is that I believe Christianity is more linked to the word/morality of Christ than the Genisis myth and that any polar opposite to Christianity would have to go against these.
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.0 -
... yes indeed not believing in any form of Creator (like Darwinism does) would indeed be a 'polar opposite' to Christianity!!!
No, it would be a 'polar opposite' to theism in general.
Saying it's a polar opposite to Christianity basically means that Hinduism is the same as Christianity because, by your definition, it's also a polar opposite to Hinduism.... let's see what Jesus had to say about the importance of every word in the Bible :-
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Come on you're better than that, a quote from Jesus about the importance of the bible won't cut it. I may as well look for Brian Cowen's opinion on who to vote for.
Anyway, Jesus wasn't speaking about the bible but the 'word of god'. Not all of the Bible proceeded for the mouth of God.
You must know how many seriously questionable passages there are in the bible to go down this route.
Anyway I figure you're of the opinion that the single most important thing about Christianity is the Genisis myth, is this true?0 -
Advertisement
-
No, it (Darwinism) would be a 'polar opposite' to theism in general.Originally Posted by gosplan
The reason I'm disagreeing is that I believe Christianity is more linked to the word/morality of Christ than the Genisis myth and that any polar opposite to Christianity would have to go against these.
Originally Posted by J C
... let's see what Jesus had to say about the importance of every word in the Bible :-
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
gosplan
Come on you're better than that, a quote from Jesus about the importance of the bible won't cut it. I may as well look for Brian Cowen's opinion on who to vote for.Anyway, Jesus wasn't speaking about the bible but the 'word of god'. Not all of the Bible proceeded for the mouth of God.
You must know how many seriously questionable passages there are in the bible to go down this route.Anyway I figure you're of the opinion that the single most important thing about Christianity is the Genisis myth, is this true?0 -
-
... Jesus Christ's opinion on the Bible is indeed important to Christianity !!!!:)
Yes, but not entirely valid if we're going to debate it.... all Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God.
God inspired people but he didn't edit the thing.
These both come down to the same thing. Is the Bible the exact message of God and should one take it literally?
I would say no.It isn't a Myth ... the Genesis account of a recent Creation is supported by Christian History and Science
FYP.... as well as being the infallible Word of God.
Well that's useful in a debate.:D0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »It never ceases to amaze me, the inability of creationists to read the next sentence.0
-
Originally Posted by gosplan
The reason I'm disagreeing is that I believe Christianity is more linked to the word/morality of Christ than the Genisis myth and that any polar opposite to Christianity would have to go against these.
Originally Posted by J C
... let's see what Jesus had to say about the importance of every word in the Bible :-
Mt 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Originally Posted by gosplan
Come on you're better than that, a quote from Jesus about the importance of the bible won't cut it. I may as well look for Brian Cowen's opinion on who to vote for.
Originally Posted by J C
... Jesus Christ's opinion on the Bible is indeed important to Christianity !!!!
gosplan
Yes, but not entirely valid if we're going to debate it.gosplan
God inspired people but he didn't edit the thing (The Bible).gosplan
These both come down to the same thing. Is the Bible the exact message of God and should one take it literally?Originally Posted by J C
... all Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God.
gosplan
I would say no.
To believe otherwise is heretical.Originally Posted by J C
It isn't a Myth ... the Genesis account of a recent Creation is supported by History and Science
gosplan
... the Genesis account of a recent Creation is supported by Christian History and Science
FYP.Originally Posted by J C
... as well as being the infallible Word of God.
gosplan
Well that's useful in a debate.:D
It is always useful to have God (and His infallible Word) on your side.
... as this thread has shown ... with God's truth on my side who can be against me?
Ps 118:6 The LORD is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?
... and speaking of the truth of God and the vain imaginings of men ... could you please address this posting and provide some evidence for your beliefs, (as distinct from questioning mine) ... for a change:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66073202&postcount=222680 -
Advertisement
-
Originally Posted by The Mad Hatter
It never ceases to amaze me, the inability of creationists to read the next sentence.
robindch
Three words too many in that sentence.
... are you resorting to counting words now? ...
... I suppose that is all you can do when you have no real argument!!!:):D:eek:
... and you highlighted four words ... but only counted three ... are you not even able to count to four now???:eek:0 -
... and you highlighted four words ... but only counted three ... are not even able to count to four now???:eek:
I am, however, quoting exactly what The Mad Hatter wrote and -- unlike the dishonest and deceitful practices universal amongst creationists -- I haven't changed what he wrote to suit myself.0 -
Originally Posted by The Mad Hatter
It never ceases to amaze me, the inability of creationists to read the next sentence.
Originally Posted by robindch
Three words too many in that sentence.
Originally Posted by J C
... and you highlighted four words ... but only counted three ... are not even able to count to four now???
robindch
I'm well able to count to four. Thanks for worrying
I am, however, quoting exactly what The Mad Hatter wrote and -- unlike the dishonest and deceitful practices universal amongst creationists -- I haven't changed what he wrote to suit myself.
... but your attempted truncation of the Mad Hatter's quote would indeed fundamentally change its meaning!!!
... and the fact remains that you highlighted four words ... but only counted three ... and you would have needed to remove five words to get the Mad Hatter's quote to say what you apparently wanted it to say!!!
... anyway have you nothing to say to save the blushes of Darwinism? ...
... which now stands like an unloved and unfounded orphan on this thread ... with nobody prepared to come to its defense.
... I feel your pain ... and I can see why you don't want to make a bad situation worse by trying to defend Darwinism and failing!!:eek::D
... although I wonder if it is a good idea to just ignore the fact that Darwinism is evidentially and logically 'challenged' to the point of Scientific invalidity ...
... and to just (inaccurately) count words ... and hope that nobody notices!!!:eek::):D0 -
... and the fact remains that you highlighted four words ... but only counted three ... and you would have needed to remove five words to get the Mad Hatter's quote to say what you apparently wanted it to say!!!
Herp Derp.
I'm only going to point out that you missed it, not what you missed.0 -
Creationists don't change what Evolutionists write ... we carefully and exactly quote what they are saying!!!!
While I wouldn't challenge you on that, two things you did change are...
The post you asked me to address(edited for some reason a day later when you decided to bring it up again???).
and then you changed thisgosplan wrote:God inspired people but he didn't edit the thing.
These both come down to the same thing. Is the Bible the exact message of God and should one take it literally?
I would say no.
into thisJ C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
... all Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God.
gosplan
I would say no.
That's very foolish JC. In the first I'm answering a question I just put to myself but through your own creative editing, I'm suddenly answering you.
You basically just rewrote history:D
Anyway, pretty busy today so will get to the rest of it tomorrow hopefully.0 -
Originally Posted by J C
... all Christians believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God.
gosplan
God inspired people but he didn't edit the thing.
These both come down to the same thing. Is the Bible the exact message of God and should one take it literally?
I would say no.
To believe otherwise is heretical.0 -
You basically just rewrote history
:D
Anyway, pretty busy today so will get to the rest of it tomorrow hopefully.0 -
Creationists don't change what Evolutionists write ... we carefully and exactly quote what they are saying!!!!
Out of context, with important details omitted, and with a complete failure to understand what was originally being said.... and the fact remains that you highlighted four words ... but only counted three ... and you would have needed to remove five words to get the Mad Hatter's quote to say what you apparently wanted it to say!!!
Robin didn't highlight anything. You are evidently proving his point, though.0 -
All Darwinism has done to Christianity is to discredit the book of Genisis.
But Christianity depends on Genesis being true, so Darwinism has discredited Christianity. Or rather, has done so in the eyes of those who have believed Darwin's fable. The truth of God stands sure, a rock which breaks all who assault it.
I regard Darwinism as the most sophisticated device ever raised against God; it uses much truth to conceal its central lie. It has seduced even true Christians, persuading them that they can still hold to their Bible and remain in favour with the current scientific consensus. All they have to do is make Genesis a fable and Christ and the apostles limited to the ideas of their time.
Of course that can't be done - and when that reality sinks in, the Christian will return to the Biblical position.
_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.0 -
Exactly!
But Christianity depends on Genesis being true, so Darwinism has discredited Christianity. Or rather, has done so in the eyes of those who have believed Darwin's fable. The truth of God stands sure, a rock which breaks all who assault it.
Which is more important to Christianity:
Genesis or The Resurrection?
I don't think a literal Genesis is critical to Christianity.0 -
Advertisement
-
Creationists don't change what Evolutionists write ... we carefully and exactly quote what they are saying!!!!
Last year, AFAIR, even you yourself were forced to admit -- finally -- that his quotation was disgracefully deceitful. Here's the full extract from Darwin's Descent of Man, with the bit that Stein left out, helpfully left in:With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.Darwin wrote:The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.robindch wrote:The Mad Hatter wrote: »It never ceases to amaze me, the inability of creationists to read the next sentence.0 -
Exactly!
But Christianity depends on Genesis being true, so Darwinism has discredited Christianity. Or rather, has done so in the eyes of those who have believed Darwin's fable. The truth of God stands sure, a rock which breaks all who assault it.
I regard Darwinism as the most sophisticated device ever raised against God; it uses much truth to conceal its central lie. It has seduced even true Christians, persuading them that they can still hold to their Bible and remain in favour with the current scientific consensus. All they have to do is make Genesis a fable and Christ and the apostles limited to the ideas of their time.
Of course that can't be done - and when that reality sinks in, the Christian will return to the Biblical position.
_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Not entirely true. Much of Darwin's work has been mis-represented much more ignored and "Darwinism" is essentially superseded my modern evolutionary theory.
In terms of describing the evolution and development within a species and the development of new strains of a species, trait inheritance and such like there is no conflict with Genesis. Darwin noticed differences between the same species on different islands and also between their mainland cousins.
Where it went wrong to my mind is that Darwin made some suggestions based on his observations and scientists set out to prove Darwins hypotheses. As you know if you go looking for something you might find it, and theories are designed to fit evidence.
Is Genesis a fable? No it is revealed wisdom.
Can rocks be throw at Darwinism and evolutionary theory? Only if rocks can be thrown at Christianity. The question then becomes which will break first and how big or how many rocks are required.
We both know the answer to that oneWhere God is concerned never bet on a theory.
0 -
Genghiz Cohen wrote: »Which is more important to Christianity:
Genesis or The Resurrection?
I don't think a literal Genesis is critical to Christianity.
Genesis serves also as a reminder that God is the Creator of the Universe, the Earth and life itself.
Asking which is more important is a funny question as the Bible is the Word of God so all parts are equally important.
The Resurrection is the most important part of Christianity is true. But without Genesis there would be no Resurrection.0 -
Genghiz Cohen wrote: »Which is more important to Christianity:
Genesis or The Resurrection?
I don't think a literal Genesis is critical to Christianity.
One can live without food for longer than without water, but in the end both are essential. So too with Genesis and the Resurrection - we can tamper with Genesis and get away with it for a time - but it has increasingly damaging consequences.
To make Genesis a parable or worse is to undermine the very basis for interpreting the New Testament authors. Is the resurrection of Christ 'literal' or a parable? Unless there are good hermeneutic reasons for understanding what appears to be historical narrative as parable, it is dishonest to do so. Better to say the author was mistaken.
The Christian knows the Author was not mistaken. He should then consider that the current scientific consensus may not be as infallible as he has been assured.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge— 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
Grace be with you. Amen.0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »Not entirely true. Much of Darwin's work has been mis-represented much more ignored and "Darwinism" is essentially superseded my modern evolutionary theory.
In terms of describing the evolution and development within a species and the development of new strains of a species, trait inheritance and such like there is no conflict with Genesis. Darwin noticed differences between the same species on different islands and also between their mainland cousins.
Where it went wrong to my mind is that Darwin made some suggestions based on his observations and scientists set out to prove Darwins hypotheses. As you know if you go looking for something you might find it, and theories are designed to fit evidence.
Is Genesis a fable? No it is revealed wisdom.
Can rocks be throw at Darwinism and evolutionary theory? Only if rocks can be thrown at Christianity. The question then becomes which will break first and how big or how many rocks are required.
We both know the answer to that oneWhere God is concerned never bet on a theory.
I used Darwinism as a synonym for molecule to man evolution, not development within Genesis kinds.
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.0 -
Exactly!
But Christianity depends on Genesis being true, so Darwinism has discredited Christianity.
Practically all of modern physics, modern geology and modern archeology has discredited a literal account of Genesis.
I was recently shown this in the Onion by Robin which brilliantly satirizes how unsustainable the YEC position is.
Sumerians look on in confusion as god creates world
We have written history from Arabia, Egypt and China that makes no mention of God suddenly appearing and making the world since the world already exists.
Forget Darwin, people knew long before Darwin that literal Genesis was not what happened.0 -
Practically all of modern physics, modern geology and modern archeology has discredited a literal account of Genesis.
I was recently shown this in the Onion by Robin which brilliantly satirizes how unsustainable the YEC position is.
Sumerians look on in confusion as god creates world
We have written history from Arabia, Egypt and China that makes no mention of God suddenly appearing and making the world since the world already exists.
Forget Darwin, people knew long before Darwin that literal Genesis was not what happened.
I would suggest that the author is basing his satire on bad data.
The Sumerian civilization was what 7k years ago. The Pleistocene - Holocene boundary was 12k years ago.
What if God kicked off life on Earth and let it at it and then came back and wasn't too happy, organised a mass extinction event and started the Holocene more or less along the lines of Genesis.
In this case God created the Sumerians and then later decided who His chosen people would be starting with Adam and Eve, chosen or created specifically.0 -
StealthRolex wrote: »I would suggest that the author is basing his satire on bad data.
The Sumerian civilization was what 7k years ago. The Pleistocene - Holocene boundary was 12k years ago.
What if God kicked off life on Earth and let it at it and then came back and wasn't too happy, organised a mass extinction event and started the Holocene more or less along the lines of Genesis.
In this case God created the Sumerians and then later decided who His chosen people would be starting with Adam and Eve, chosen or created specifically.
That isn't what YEC such as Wolfsbane believe though, so it is some what irrelevant.
YEC believe the Earth is 6k years old. As you point out the Sumerian civilization is 7k years old. There lies the problem
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/world-born-4004-bc0 -
That isn't what YEC such as Wolfsbane believe though, so it is some what irrelevant.
YEC believe the Earth is 6k years old. As you point out the Sumerian civilization is 7k years old. There lies the problem
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/world-born-4004-bc
It is relevant if we are discussing the Bible and Creation or how to reconcile the Bible record with history.
Firstly - Time is relative. Time before the appearance of Adam and Eve could be any length.
Secondly - depending on how you do your calculation man in the form of H. Sapiens sapiens has been on earth for at least 10,000 years with some estimates of 50,000 years.
Thirdly - we have no idea how long Adam and Eve were in Eden before that fateful meeting with Satan.
Fourthly- much of evolutionary theory is informed by present behaviour. On that basis technological development and the development of civilization would suggest that either man sat on his hands for a long long time or a new species appeared in the very late Pleistocene early Holocene.
So either man in his present form appear no more than 10 or 12k years ago or something happened that changed human behaviour quite suddenly and dramatically.
The Genesis accounts indicates that man went from living off the fruits of the land to having to work the soil. How long man was living off fruits we do not know so it is entirely possible that Adam and Eve were in Eden for tens of thousands of years and it was only when they were kicked out that their normal aging and their reproductive processes began. In the meantime the rest of H. Sapiens was happily living outside of Eden oblivious to the fate of Adam and Eve.0 -
Advertisement
-
StealthRolex wrote: »It is relevant if we are discussing the Bible and Creation or how to reconcile the Bible record with history.
Are we though?
If you want to try and convince posters like Wolfsbane and JC they are wrong about their interpretation be my guest, others have tried and failed. It is your funeral.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement