The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Paulw0t

wolfsbane wrote:

5uspect said:

You are right in implying that a Christian must buy into all that the Scripture asserts. You are wrong in thinking Christ died for all the sins of everyone without exception. Many Christians believe that, but the Bible is fairly clear that He only bore the sins of His people on the tree. He died for His sheep alone, not for the goats also. All whom He died for will be saved.

I'm sorry could you back that one up with the Bible ? Christ died for the world. he died for the sins of man, he died knowing people would reject him however It does say in John 3:16 a very well known verse He died for the world not just the few that would say ok to it.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

How can you get married to someone if you can't speak yet?

Human lanuage developed after humans. The ritual of marriage much later after that. For thousands of years humans were having sex outside of marriage because they didn't know what marriage was to start with.

Again, that is part of the debate. The Bible teaches, and Creationists hold, that man was created fully mature and marriage was instituted with the first couple, Adam and Eve.

And if you don't damage the rectum and have an STD test with your partner before you first have sex? Is it then still a bad idea?

Yes, because it flagrantly disobeys God. That is always a bad idea.

Its not perverse if you are homosexual, thats the point.

The truth is true whether one accepts it or not. Homosexuality is a perversion of the sexual nature God gave us.

6000 yrs before Christ, which was 2000 years ago, and I thought Adam and Eve lived for a long time in Eden?

Approximately 4000 years BC, (4004BC, according to Ussher, the Archbishop of Dublin). And there is no indication that they were long in the Garden before they sinned and were expelled. Adam's lifespan is given as 930 years; he was 130 when seth was born. That was after Cain murdered Abel. Cain and Abel were born after Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden.

They do. A sunrise is the appearence of the sun on a specific spot on Earth. Its kinda hard to have sunrise if you don't have a specific spot, an Earth or for that matter a sun yet.

So you believe the Sun actually rises, not that the Earth turns toward it?

Pi "approximated" to 3 is incorrect, it won't work. The level or error is too great, just like 1+1=3 is also too great a level of error.

Close enough for their purposes, as the article pointed out.

Why? they believe in Jesus, they believe in God. They just don't accept that the people who wrote the Bible must have got everything perfect, and if they see something in the Bible that contradicts what we know about nature, they go with the nature and assume the Bible's description is a mistake

Once they accept the Bible is wrong about anything it asserts, they have no logical reason for believing any of it, especially all the stuff about spiritual things. So they are just picking the bits they like.

No, they describe themselves as Christians who also like to think.

It is good for everyone to think; but once you think differently from God and hold to that, you are not His disciple.

That view would be contradicted by what we know about nature (see the above)

Yes but what made homosexuality part of human nature? What force encoded homosexuality into the gentic make up of humans and other animals. "Sin" isn't something that does stuff, "sin" can't make change the laws of biology?

What force brought suffering and death to man and beast? - the judgement of God on man's sin. Any genetic disposition to homosexuality (if there is one) would be no different to a genetic disposition to other forms of sin, such as selfishness, promiscuity, murder.

And I'm telling you that your idea of marriage is not the one found in the Bible.

You obviously know more about the Bible than Christ:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:1-14;&version=50;
__________________

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Again, that is part of the debate. The Bible teaches, and Creationists hold, that man was created fully mature and marriage was instituted with the first couple, Adam and Eve.

And the reality teaches us otherwise, the Bible is wrong.

To me this conflict ultimately comes down to who are you going to believe, a book written 4000 years ago, or nature around us. If you believe that God created reality then it seems strange to believe the Bible over what you can actually observe that God did. Its kinda like calling God a liar.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, because it flagrantly disobeys God. That is always a bad idea.

Yes but you don't actually know its disobeying God, and nature would imply its not.

wolfsbane wrote:

The truth is true whether one accepts it or not. Homosexuality is a perversion of the sexual nature God gave us.

You are basing that on your cut instinct, which is largely irrelevent since (I assume) you aren't a homosexual. My cut instinct says giving a blow job to another man would be disgusting, but women don't seem to mind doing it. So am I right, it is disgusting and the women are preverse, or is it simply that I don't get it because I'm not a woman.

wolfsbane wrote:

Approximately 4000 years BC, (4004BC, according to Ussher, the Archbishop of Dublin). And there is no indication that they were long in the Garden before they sinned and were expelled. Adam's lifespan is given as 930 years; he was 130 when seth was born. That was after Cain murdered Abel. Cain and Abel were born after Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden.

Ok, I'll take your word on it. I was told that by other Christians, but you seem to know a bit about it

wolfsbane wrote:

So you believe the Sun actually rises, not that the Earth turns toward it?

Oh right, I see your point now. No, obviously not, the sun isn't moving. But then you get into the wonderful world or perspective and relativity. Who books have been written about it.

wolfsbane wrote:

Once they accept the Bible is wrong about anything it asserts, they have no logical reason for believing any of it, especially all the stuff about spiritual things. So they are just picking the bits they like.

True, but then isn't God supposed to be in the conscious of all humans? Doesn't it make sense that the bits they "like" and find acceptable are also probably the correct bits.

wolfsbane wrote:

It is good for everyone to think; but once you think differently from God and hold to that, you are not His disciple.

True, but then you don't know they are thinking differently from God you only know they are thinking differently from the Bible. They ask themselves the question "does this make sense?" or "is this really what God would want us to do?" From that they find the real morality, what they believe is the real wishes of God

If their conscience conflicts with the teachings of the Bible they believe that first, since they believe that is directly effected by God. We are free to do as we wishs but God guides our morality.

wolfsbane wrote:

Any genetic disposition to homosexuality (if there is one) would be no different to a genetic disposition to other forms of sin, such as selfishness, promiscuity, murder.

So God chose to make homosexuality a sin and then called it a sin. That doesn't really make much sense.

wolfsbane wrote:

You obviously know more about the Bible than Christ:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019:1-14;&version=50;
__________________

Old Testement there wolfsbane, old testement

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, it was less harmful before AIDS. Condoms are not sinful. Protected sex is not in itself sinful ( sinful only when outside marriage). Same applies to oral sex.

If all of this is the case, then there is no point in attempting to justify the ban on extra-marital sex by reference to its ill effects.

wolfsbane wrote:

Living responsibly is according to the Maker's instructions. We will all die eventually, but our death is not a consequence of our living. My car comes with Manufacturer's instructions. If I ignore them, the life of my car or its performance may well be effected. If I adhere to them, eventually it will wear out anyway. So with our lives. Except that God directly intervenes in our lives daily, unlike the car maker. If He decides I get cancer at any age, that is up to Him. The length of my life and its quality is up to Him, even if I try to keep all the instructions.

I can't bring myself to comment on this.

wolfsbane wrote:

That is the point - it must be based on a social contract, which will vary as the society does; or on an 'assumption', not on the logical consequence of the premise of atheism.

Correct. From the point of view of the atheist, both religious and non-religious public moralities are "contract moralities". I am not required to be Christian, so I am not required to observe Christian morality.

Any social group is entitled to additional contactual obligations on those members as long as they do not contradict the general contract - that is, they must be supplementary rules, not variants or negations. This is the "secular" and "multicultural" position.

Any group with a moral contract that is in any way in disagreement with the general contractual morality will wish to impose its own contract in place of the general contract - this is to be expected, but needs to be prevented.

wolfsbane wrote:

That makes sense if atheism is true. Non-harmful actions certainly cannot be condemned, if there is no higher standard than not harming another.

But if Christianity - or one of several other religions - is true, then acts like sex outside of marriage must be condemned, for they violate the commands of the Creator.

Very true. It would be nice, of course, if those several religions had somewhat more in common than they do - it would suggest that they reflected a deeper truth, rather than simply being the product of diverse social contracts...

wolfsbane wrote:

I agree - or rather, I agree that explains the folly of claiming absolute standards without the premise, and the proof of that premise in one's own mind. The Christian has both. The outsider cannot have the same certainty, so may well regard our claims as as unknowable as any other. That doesn't make them any less valid - a thing is true whether one believes it or not.

This is indeed the case - and it tends to give the Christian's arguments more force than is warranted, by virtue of the greater certainty of the proponent. Certainty is always attractive to the listener. It is, however, worth pointing out that things are sometimes untrue, whether one believes them or not...

wolfsbane wrote:

Christians know their God is real and is as revealed in the Bible. He has sent us to call our fellowmen to Him also, and those who have been chosen by Him will come to faith.

Alas, as I may have said before, I do not regard the God revealed in the OT as any more worshipable, or believable, or even tolerable, than any other tribal deity.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

OK, but I was applying the image to both evolutionary and creationist ideas. Obviously they present a framework. But are you saying it is a completed jigsaw?

No, I would hardly claim that! The difference is:

1. evolutionary theory has a framework that has emerged from its constituent theories (the "evolutionist" worldview), each of which has been developed to explain some particular set of observations. That the theories nevertheless dovetail with each other, despite their several origins, suggests the correctness of the emergent framework.

2. creation science has a framework that precedes any of its theories. All theories must fit, exactly, the Biblical account. If they then fitted together as well, this would suggest the correctness of the Biblical framework. Unfortunately, the theories conflict, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes obviously, with each other, and with the evidence.

So, while evolution is not a completed jigsaw, we can see that the pieces fit, and appear to be making a picture. Creationists, meanwhile, are forced to get the pieces to sit square against the outside of the box, whatever their shape, and have to bend or distort pieces that don't fit each other.

wolfsbane wrote:

The problem in the midst of this generally correct comment is that of invoking the supernatural. To reject the possiblility of such a happening is not science, but materialism. The claim of supernatural intervention must be open to examination just as any other proposed mechanism. We cannot rule out beforehand uniformitarian explanations of a geological feature, nor a natural catastropic origin, nor a supernatural one. That is scientism, not science.

In the sense that you use materialism here, science is entirely materialistic. It does not deal with the supernatural for a very simple reason - there are no limits on the power of the supernatural. If there are no limits, there is no explanatory force, so the supernatural explanation is simply not testable. Let me give you an example:

A large rock sits on top of a mountain in Wicklow - it is different from the rock of which the mountain is made. We wish to know how and why it is there. The investigator invokes the supernatural, and says "God put it there". Where do we go from there? We turn to the Bible - unfortunately, there is nothing in the Bible about the Wicklow Mountains. Now, God is not "constrained" except by what the Bible says (that is, the Bible is the only guide we have to God's actions), so if the Bible does not mention this rock there is simply no more we can know about it. We cannot know God's purposes except where he has chosen to reveal them.

Is this of any use? Clearly not. Would this be defensible as a thesis if science allowed the invocation of the supernatural? Yes it would. Is that why science does not allow the invocation of the supernatural? Yes.

If God is the Creator, an entirely materialistic science will be building a picture that is neither more nor less than the reflection of God in his handiwork. If that is so, it ill befits the "Creationist" to quibble, unless, perhaps, they lack confidence that this is so?

woflsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Creationist science, in general, does not make testable predictions, and relies on mechanisms that are physically impossible, and which require the invocation of the supernatural.

Creationists would deny the first two points.

I'm sure they would. However, we have repeatedly requested that a testable prediction be offered, and it has not been done. I appreciate that neither you nor JC are scientifically adept, so I can use the ones from hydroplate theory as examples.

Hydroplate theory (for those who don't know it) suggests that all continental movement took place at the time of the Flood, or very shortly afterwards - before that the Earth was flat, or flattish, like Australia. It suggests that the waters of the Flood came from below the earth (the "fountains of the deep"), and shot up with great force from under the lands when vast rifts were opened in the surface of the earth (hence the rain). The continents then slid around very quickly indeed on the water beneath them, crashing into each other and raising the mountains etc. The waters receded by evaporation (possibly - it doesn't seem

The authors of the theory offer a number of "testable predictions", of which I will pick a couple of the most apparently testable:

1. that large bodies of water should be found below the earth (hydroplate remnants)
2. that plate movement (detectable by GPS) should be declining

Now, that seems clear-cut, and pretty testable, doesn't it? Except that:

1. this appears to be a prediction, but isn't. The theory is not found false if there are such bodies, nor is it found false if there are not. In the one case the water is claimed as remnant hydroplate water, in the other one simply says that all the hydroplate water was released. Win-win, as they say - which means this is not a testable prediction. No such bodies have been found, so the authors are falling back on the second explanation.

2. why would the plates continue moving if the hydroplate water is gone? For the author's model to work, the water must be there to allow plate movement. If the water is all gone, the plates should simply stop moving. If they are still moving at all, there must be water underneath. The author rather casually ignores this, and instead sets forth as a testable prediction something that his theory actually denies as possible.

wolfsbane wrote:

Obviously, if a thing cannot be tested to see if its effects are in line with its claimed existence, it is beyond science. But Creationist claims - a young earth; world-wide flood; mathematical improbability of abiogenesis, for example - can be tested. It is the means and interpretations of those tests that is disputed.

Yes - science wishes to use the same tools that produced all the technology we see around us today, such as this Internet thing, and washing machines, and vaccines, and all that. Creationists apparently feel that this does not offer a level playing field, or is somehow not a proper scientific test, and that something else, like PR, or law, would produce a better scientific test.

Look, if you want to win at football, you have to play football. If you have to change the rules, it isn't football. If you want Young Earth Creation scientifically validated, you have to use scientific rules. If you have to change the rules, it isn't science.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Haha! No, that's a false dichotomy. All science is historical, or forensic, or observational, if you like, although some more obviously than others (geology perhaps most of all). Forensic science is still science, but more variables are uncontrolled, that's all.

Creationists would agree with that explanation. That's why I called both types 'science'.

Yes, "Creation science" would of necessity be forensic or historical. It would also need to actually be science, which it isn't, and can't be, for the reasons given above re. invocation of the supernatural. Calling it "Creation science" is simply PR.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Sure, it is disputed. But is it honestly disputed? Can any scholar or just literate reader of Romans deny Paul's plain condemnation of homosexuality? Remember also, it is in the context of Paul knowing the various moral condemnations of the Mosaic Law.

What is disputed, as is obvious, is the translation of the terms arsenokoites and malakos. This is not susceptible to literary criticism - it's a linguistic issue, and there is no-one speaking that language to whom we can refer.

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

All that's been "experimentally proven" is speciation,

No problem there. In fact, a natural waterfall pool has achieved the same results: Speedy species surprise

Heavens! Perhaps the authors had never read "Gould S.J., and N. Eldredge. 1977: Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3, pp. 115-151."? Is that why they think this is news?

In addition, this highlights the standard lack of primary research by Creationists. The authors set forward, as a given, that the mechanism that allows this rapid adaptation is not genetic evolution. Instead, they say "informed creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the created genetic information already present".

Is any attempt made by the authors to test this assertion? No. Again, this is PR, not science, and in PR, you don't need to provide proof, merely a good-sounding knock.

On that subject, I am amazed that you think AiG have no burden to provide proof with a publicity statement (because it's "on their website", no less), whereas the "Scientific Establishment" does (and have you looked at their websites?)! Are you unable to detect political knocking when you're doing it? Are you not ashamed?

really quite contemptible, I'm afraid,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

You are right in implying that a Christian must buy into all that the Scripture asserts. You are wrong in thinking Christ died for all the sins of everyone without exception. Many Christians believe that, but the Bible is fairly clear that He only bore the sins of His people on the tree. He died for His sheep alone, not for the goats also. All whom He died for will be saved.

Which is interesting, if you consider our discussion about whether Jesus intended to preach to the Gentiles, for which you can offer no evidence from Jesus himself except one extremely obscure passage.

Has it occurred to you that maybe Jesus, a Jew, just saved the Jews? And that the rest of us are goats?

mischievously,
Scofflaw

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, it certainly displays the wickedness of man. But it is a mistake to understand 'virgin daughter' as a child, rather it is a description of any young woman who has not been given in marriage. The householder's behaviour in offering his daughter to be raped instead of his guest suggests a cultural taboo on allowing harm to one's guests, rather than a judgement as to whether rape of a man or woman is greater.

The rape that did occur - of the guest's concubine - brought exemplary judgement on the perpetrators and those who refused to hand them over: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=20&version=50

And all the bible or any holy book shows are the actions and the ideas of men, wicked, good or otherwise - nothing else. Your assumption that your holy book is the word of a supernatural being is completely untestable. You cannot say that it is anything other than a belief and should be preceeded by "I believe that..." not statements of absolute truth. If this is your personal belief thats fine until you start to push this as scientific fact. And this is the problem with creationism distorting facts to fit this completely unfounded view. It is like a group of people claiming the diminutive Homo floresiensis recently discovered in Indonesia is an actual hobbit and proof that the Lord of the Rings is a historical document.

And this also goes to show the huge amount of interpretation that the bible is open to. Stories like this are bandied about as the word of god and some sort of universal manual for morality, the origins of life and even science when their exact meaning is different in different parts of the world. I'm starting to understand your attutides regarding supernatural beings somewhat now. It is just as Scofflaw described the large rock on top of the mountain in wicklow. Your belief allows you to consider the supernatural when looking at things you do not understand. However you cannot uncouple your belief form reality when it becomes apparent to everyone else that what you see as only being posible with a supernatural event can be explained through pure rational arguement and obseravtion bases on facts. How do you cope with such a paradigm shift? Have you ever had to stop and admit that you were wrong in your beliefs? The AiG website seems to revel in the changes in evolutionary theory and yet never questions its unfounded beliefs. Science is willing to review the conclusions drawn from observation and ammend its position in the light of new evidence - religion and creationism cannot.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

Some of you may enjoy this, if you haven't already seen it:

Doonesbury

cordially,
Scofflaw

I've posted that twice so far on this thread.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

bluewolf said:

Both. Please explain why it cannot be true that honest unbelieving commentators will agree that the Bible condems homosexuality.

I said it because honest believing people who study the bible disagree.

J C

J C wrote:

I DON’T expect you to believe anything that I say based upon the fact that I am a scientist.
I merely present the evidence against Evolution and in favour of Direct Creation and leave it up to you to make your own mind up about which is more likely to have occurred.

I have told you that I am a trained scientist and you don’t believe me – I see no further point in discussing my credentials.

Most "trained scientists" don't call themselves "trained scientists". That's my first hint.
Secondly is the long list that Son Goku has of claims you've made without being able to back up - you won't even deal with simple calculations.

And as scofflaw has said you DO make claims based on being a "trained scientist". We've listed our backgrounds. It's your turn.

Scofflaw

bluewolf wrote:

I've posted that twice so far on this thread.

I was sure some sensible person would have done so (hence my caveat)! I hope you don't mind the repetition...

unoriginally,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote:

I was sure some sensible person would have done so (hence my caveat)! I hope you don't mind the repetition...

unoriginally,
Scofflaw

Nah, I don't think anyone responded the last two times anyway. I was a little newbie to the thread

wolfsbane

Hi, Mountainyman. You said:

Seems a bit harsh; why is God trying to fool us. That's too easyy like me tricking the dog.

It is God's punishment on those who have consistently refused to heed the truth He sent them. He then gives them over to totally believe the lie, the claims of Antichrist, and to follow him in his persecution of the Church.

God's grace is not permanently on offer: Seek the LORD while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near. Isaiah 55:6.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

Hi, Mountainyman. You said:

It is God's punishment on those who have consistently refused to heed the truth He sent them. He then gives them over to totally believe the lie, the claims of Antichrist, and to follow him in his persecution of the Church.

God's grace is not permanently on offer: Seek the LORD while He may be found, Call upon Him while He is near. Isaiah 55:6.

You know that most people who aren't christian don't persecute the church, and not believing in christ => not believing in an antichrist?

wolfsbane

robindch said:

No, you didn't say "them", you wrote "The Establishment" which is a petulant term to apply to the majority of the world's scientific societies releasing a joint statement on a scientific topic.

Right, so it is petulance for anyone to describe the authorities of any society or societies as the Establishment? Or does that only apply to creationists?

And yes, they are worried. Because creationists continually lie about scientists, lie about evolution, lie about physics, lie about chemistry. And all to make money and spread their nihilistic and vacant philosophy on the backs of well-meaning people like you. And because they carry a bible in one hand, you will refuse to doubt their honesty. Makes life easy for them!

We've been over it before, but it is worth reminding you that some of the creationist scientists are known to me personally, and their honesty and intelligence is evident. I am not listening to some cult leader and his associates. As for nihilism and vacant philosophy, the evidence for meaning and positive contribution to society is well-supported in the lives of biblical Christians. The Columbine High School massacre provides an example of what philosophy is associated with nihilism.

Have you not suspected after all this time on the thread that the world's libraries might be full of these "notes"? That there a tens of thousands of papers published each year adding to the already conclusive evidence in favour of evolution? Have you not read a single of the millions of pages accurately discussing evolution on the internet? Have you not noticed that Ham's outfit doesn't link to a single scientific organization, but still claims to be an authority on a scientific topic? Do you think that there might be a reason for this failure?

Certainly I realize they had all this material on tap. The AiG point was that attempting to dismiss the creationist case by issuing that statement, one could have expected at least one or more key objections to be given as examples of proven evolution. To do that would of course have opened them up to challenge, and we can't have the prols doing that.

Yes, AiG don't seem to have links to outside organizations. Perhaps it is just there focus. Other Creationist organizations do: http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/links_to_other_sites.html

I'll accept your word on that! And while it certainly helps to explain your creationist leanings, I can't help but think that if you would spend even ten percent of the time reading up on evolution, as described by competent people, as you seem to spend reading the soft-brained drivel on AiG, you might make some headway in understanding the world you live in

Ah, yes, the 'competent people'. Not like these people: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci

I'm too dull to recognise irony, brassy enough to question my betters, and base enough to listen 'soft-brained' PhD scientists. Bible-believing Christians are indeed a bit of a scandal to civilised society.

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

You know that most people who aren't christian don't persecute the church, and not believing in christ => not believing in an antichrist?

Yes, but my comment was in relation to the prophecy of the times of Antichrist. Then everyone will persecute the Church and not believing in Christ will mean believing in the Antichrist.

However, it is presently true that the Church is experiencing increasing persecution from many quarters. Communism where it still has control; Islam in most areas where it it strong - Islamic lands like Pakistan and those with a significant section of Muslims, such as Nigeria; Hinduism in India; Buddism in Burma; Judaism in Israel; Orthodoxy in Russia and some of the Slavic countries, and Greece; Roman Catholicism in Mexico and East Timor.

Not all of this is soley directed at the Church (by which I mean Bible-believing Christianity). Consciously it is directed at those who are different, and the Church certainly stands out as counter-culture. Some of the trouble is ethnic also, such as with the Karen in Burma, where most of the Christians come from.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

bluewolf said:

Yes, but my comment was in relation to the prophecy of the times of Antichrist. Then everyone will persecute the Church and not believing in Christ will mean believing in the Antichrist.

I really, really don't see how there can be an antithesis of something that doesn't exist (or is believed not to exist). Or how one can believe in anti-christ without believing in christ. Unless we mean "believing in" as in following as opposed to actual existence...

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

However, it is presently true that the Church is experiencing increasing persecution from many quarters. Communism where it still has control; Islam in most areas where it it strong - Islamic lands like Pakistan and those with a significant section of Muslims, such as Nigeria; Hinduism in India; Buddism in Burma; Judaism in Israel; Orthodoxy in Russia and some of the Slavic countries, and Greece; Roman Catholicism in Mexico and East Timor.

How is Roman Catholicism putting pressure on Christianity?

There are quite a lot of people who think RC is not christianity.

Son Goku

bluewolf wrote:

There are quite a lot of people who think RC is not christianity.

I see, it is presently true that wolfsbane's specific branch of chrisitanity is experiencing increasing persecution from many quarters.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Right, so it is petulance for anyone to describe the authorities of any society or societies as the Establishment? Or does that only apply to creationists?

Well, it certainly has a very specific tone - it sets you as the embattled but correct underdog, while the Establishment of "stuffed labcoats" pontificate incorrectly, suppressing the truth you struggle to set free. It is, in short, a PR word - an emotive label that allows you to diminish the impact of the statement by an ad hominem argument.

wolfsbane wrote:

We've been over it before, but it is worth reminding you that some of the creationist scientists are known to me personally, and their honesty and intelligence is evident. I am not listening to some cult leader and his associates.

I don't doubt this. Of course, both you and I would agree that intelligent and honest individuals are no less capable of deluding themselves than the next person. We have discussed cognitive dissonance before, I think - our only disagreement is really about which side of the debate is the delusional one!

wolfsbane wrote:

As for nihilism and vacant philosophy, the evidence for meaning and positive contribution to society is well-supported in the lives of biblical Christians. The Columbine High School massacre provides an example of what philosophy is associated with nihilism.

There's unfortunately no evidence for it outside the anecdotal, and some evidence to suggest that overall it's a bad thing for a society. As to Columbine - the boys involved were psychopaths (in the literal, psychiatric sense) - I don't see what it has to do with the debate.

wolfsbane wrote:

Certainly I realize they had all this material on tap. The AiG point was that attempting to dismiss the creationist case by issuing that statement, one could have expected at least one or more key objections to be given as examples of proven evolution. To do that would of course have opened them up to challenge, and we can't have the prols doing that.

Not at all. They are responding to the impression given by Creationists that there is a real debate within science on the issue, which there isn't. The Creationist "case" is not really worth dismissing.

Amazingly enough, any prole can become a scientist - all you'll need is the ability to think. If you haven't bothered to become a scientist, on the other hand, it's difficult to imagine why you think you're competent to judge science.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, AiG don't seem to have links to outside organizations. Perhaps it is just there focus. Other Creationist organizations do: http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/links_to_other_sites.html

Pfeh. Weak copout. They don't link because there are very few who they could link to, and those are Creationists too, but of a sufficiently different stripe to make them anathema.

wolfsbane wrote:

Ah, yes, the 'competent people'. Not like these people: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci

I'm too dull to recognise irony, brassy enough to question my betters, and base enough to listen 'soft-brained' PhD scientists. Bible-believing Christians are indeed a bit of a scandal to civilised society.

Well, that list has Snelling on it, so I don't really give it much credence. Anyway, the point here might be that if all you read is stuff knocking evolution, you might form a slightly biased view of it!

Also, a scientist is not your "better", as you so ingenuously put it - but they are likely to know more about science than you do, just as a chef will know more about cooking. If you feel you're "excluded", it would be better to study what you're attacking than cry foul.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

I see, it is presently true that wolfsbane's specific branch of chrisitanity is experiencing increasing persecution from many quarters.

But then, so are the Falun Gong, and atheists in many regimes in many places and many times. And even in the US, you can't stand for public office as an atheist - plus everyone hates you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [wolfsbane] so it is petulance for anyone to describe the authorities of any society
> or societies as the Establishment?

In the way you've done it, yes it is. Why slag them off, rather than engage with the argument? Would your approach work in a court of law?

> I am not listening to some cult leader and his associates.

That depends on how you define "cult", but the point is certainly arguable and I would politely suggest that you take a look, for example, at how many line items apply to your creationist beliefs when checked against the "BITE" mind-control model, particularly in the information and thought-control topics:

http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/articles/BITE.htm

Interestingly, creationism doesn't really register as an emotive controller at all. Presumably this is why you and others regularly bring up the unrelated topics of Mao/Stalin/Hitler/etc in an attempt to fill this gap?

And having sat through two hours of Ken Ham in UCD last year, frankly he sounded just like a cult leader to me.

> Yes, AiG don't seem to have links to outside organizations. Perhaps
> it is just there focus.

This is not an answer. AiG don't link to any scientific organizations because AiG is not in the business of broadening the minds of the people who use it, but rather in the more profitable business of selling propaganda, which it does very well indeed.

It's been a while since TO has been mentioned here, but it's worth pointing out (again) that every dishonest claim that AiG makes is comprehensively rebutted at this website:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Out of interest, have you ever looked through this list? If not, then I politely suggest that you spend any time that you would have used to respond to this posting, instead reading through a few of the TO rebuttals. I can't guarantee that you'll find it enlightening in any way, but I really do think you should spend at least a few minutes reading up on your ideaological opponents.

robindch

> And even in the US, you can't stand for public office as an atheist

hmmm... not true. Officially, you *can* stand, but obviously little if any hope of getting elected.

I believe there are around 25 states which require that anybody standing for public office must believe in god, but these markedly unconstitutional provisions aren't enforced simply because they don't need to be.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

> And even in the US, you can't stand for public office as an atheist

hmmm... not true. Officially, you *can* stand, but obviously little if any hope of getting elected.

I believe there are around 25 states which require that anybody standing for public office must believe in god, but these markedly unconstitutional provisions aren't enforced simply because they don't need to be.

I sit corrected (on the basis that it's easier to type sitting down).

thanks,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

A Supernatural explanation has never produced a testable prediction. I have yet to see it. All I ever hear is how people working in evolution have misinterpreted things, I have yet to see a single actual prediction.
This is the reason your side has never risen beyond the internet forum level of scientific enquiry.
Stop following evolution around and saying where it is incorrect, make an independant prediction to counter it.

See Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=329

Other articles relating to predictions include this, especially the section Predictions or ‘postdictions’? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp

A single physicist, in a non-origins related area of physics......................................who actually doesn't work in research, but as a technician.

See the section A ‘good theory’ because it’s ‘widely accepted’? in http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter3.asp, especially where Scientific American acknowledges Some anti-evolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes).

What ways can it be tested?
Can anybody give me a single experiment or test we could perform?

Obviously we can't re-run the whole thing, so we look for evidence consistent with either old or young. See Evidence for a Young World
by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR associate professor of physics in http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

wolfsbane

Paulw0t said:

I'm sorry could you back that one up with the Bible ? Christ died for the world. he died for the sins of man, he died knowing people would reject him however It does say in John 3:16 a very well known verse He died for the world not just the few that would say ok to it.

As I said, even true Christians differ on this. But to answer your question, look first at the verse you referred to:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Note that it says nothing about how many Christ died for. That it was for everyone without exception is something we read into it, because that is usually what we have been taught. It does say God loved the world; that Christ was given to save those who would believe in Him.

To get at the identity of those from whom Christ died, we need to take in the texts that specifically address the issue, for example: John 10[/B]:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. cp. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,

As this subject is off-topic, let me refer you to a fuller treatment by John Piper at: http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/tulip.html

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

To me this conflict ultimately comes down to who are you going to believe, a book written 4000 years ago, or nature around us. If you believe that God created reality then it seems strange to believe the Bible over what you can actually observe that God did. Its kinda like calling God a liar.

Nature around us agrees with what the Bible asserts. You and I differ as to what we believe nature is saying.

Yes but you don't actually know its disobeying God, and nature would imply its not.

It certainly is disobeying the God of the Bible. And nature fits in with what the Bible reveals of Creation's fall.

You are basing that on your cut instinct, which is largely irrelevent since (I assume) you aren't a homosexual. My cut instinct says giving a blow job to another man would be disgusting, but women don't seem to mind doing it. So am I right, it is disgusting and the women are preverse, or is it simply that I don't get it because I'm not a woman.

I'm basing it primarily on what God says, but it is true that nature itself tells us that homosexuality is perverse. No, you are illogical. Sex with a woman cannot be equalted with sex with a man, or an animal. Each has their proper sexual partner.

Ok, I'll take your word on it. I was told that by other Christians, but you seem to know a bit about it

Probably explains their other views too - ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches.

True, but then isn't God supposed to be in the conscious of all humans? Doesn't it make sense that the bits they "like" and find acceptable are also probably the correct bits.

Good point. But the case is we not only have a conscience, but a corrupt nature that tries to suppress the witness of conscience. We have all experienced that consciously, and it is true for much of what happens subconsiously. Only the grace of God can turn us around so that our desires are to do His will and sin becomes the exception rather than the rule.

True, but then you don't know they are thinking differently from God you only know they are thinking differently from the Bible. They ask themselves the question "does this make sense?" or "is this really what God would want us to do?" From that they find the real morality, what they believe is the real wishes of God

That sounds like what the more sincere of them might be doing. But it is crazy - for how can they believe in the God of the Bible if they pick and choose what is to be believed in it? They are believing in a god of their own imaginations.

If their conscience conflicts with the teachings of the Bible they believe that first, since they believe that is directly effected by God. We are free to do as we wishs but God guides our morality.

How do they know this about God?

So God chose to make homosexuality a sin and then called it a sin. That doesn't really make much sense.

No, God chose to deliver mankind up to perversions, sins that degraded them even as they had degraded God in their estimations. Like all other sins, homosexuality is not something God made, but the rebellious actions of sinful man.

Old Testement there wolfsbane, old testement

Yes, Christ was quoting from the Old Testament. Old testament and New Testament are both the Word of God.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

If all of this is the case, then there is no point in attempting to justify the ban on extra-marital sex by reference to its ill effects.

The prime reason is it is contrary to God's command. The secondary one's include the physical dangers.

Correct. From the point of view of the atheist, both religious and non-religious public moralities are "contract moralities". I am not required to be Christian, so I am not required to observe Christian morality.

I'm all in favour of civil and religious liberties.

Any social group is entitled to additional contactual obligations on those members as long as they do not contradict the general contract - that is, they must be supplementary rules, not variants or negations. This is the "secular" and "multicultural" position.

Any group with a moral contract that is in any way in disagreement with the general contractual morality will wish to impose its own contract in place of the general contract - this is to be expected, but needs to be prevented.

I don't wish to impose my contract upon anyone. What we may be disagreeing with here is what is to regarded as part of the general contract. For example, worship of God is part of my contract but I do not wish it imposed on anyone. Anti-slavery behaviour is also part of my contract and I do want it imposed on all, but not because it is of my contract but because it should be part of the general contract.

Very true. It would be nice, of course, if those several religions had somewhat more in common than they do - it would suggest that they reflected a deeper truth, rather than simply being the product of diverse social contracts...

Or it can just as well be explained by it being the Truth and the others as perversions of it, as the Bible clearly teaches.

This is indeed the case - and it tends to give the Christian's arguments more force than is warranted, by virtue of the greater certainty of the proponent. Certainty is always attractive to the listener. It is, however, worth pointing out that things are sometimes untrue, whether one believes them or not...

Indeed,

Alas, as I may have said before, I do not regard the God revealed in the OT as any more worshipable, or believable, or even tolerable, than any other tribal deity.

Of course you don't. None of us can, except God frees us from our blindness. John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.