|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 9:39:47 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 718
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL: gluadysquote:
Actually, it is because I have faith in creation that I accept evolution.
Please explain just what it is about the Genesis creation story that convinces you evolution is true.
quote:
But let's begin with the fact that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.
That is not a fact. It is atheist dogma. It is one of Satan’s lies.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 9:41:53 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 718
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:swan42quote:
This is considered a good thing and illustrates the differences between scientists and fundamentalists (Islamic or Christian).
Since you put Christian fundamentalists on par with Islamic fundamentalists does that mean you put Christianity on par with Islam?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 10:07:40 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1369
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: swan42
quote:
Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] a type of nontheism.[4]
Don't claim the facts if they are not yours.
Atheism has traditionally referred to the notion that there is no God. Unclemonkey is right when he says that agnosticism is the notion that we do not know.
quote:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism
According to the same site
quote:
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheism is primarily defined as the notion that there is no God. The key here is context. The primary definition should be assumed unless the context implies that the secondary definition is to be used. In the statement
quote:
ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
Second, if you ask an Atheist why he doesn't believe in a God, he will say there is no evidence to persuade him otherwise. This argument implies he indeed has evidence against a God.
The context makes it clear that the primary definition is being referred to. So, please, do not insist on defining a word out of context (giving it a definition that the context does not imply).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 10:22:26 AM
|
|
|
lpt
Posts: 71
Joined: 6/8/2006
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mandicoot
So you're saying that God makes a report, and then "leaves clues" to say that "oh, maybe My report wasn't quite right." 
He's GOD for goodness' sake. He is incapable of leaving an innacurate report.
That is why we do not believe that the report of his creation is inaccurate. The stars, the sun, the rocks, the mountains, and the records of our genetic history, all given to us by the Word of God, do not lie to us.
If you think you are finding contradictions to them in the scriptures, I suggest you need to re-examine your assumptions about the scriptures.
Earlier you said, "I do read the scriptures. I accept the truth of scripture."
Now you're saying that you don't believe the Scriptures to be accurate.
Which is it? Is God's Word fallible when it comes to creation? If so, it's fallible elsewhere, and God is therefore inept.
As for me, I will believe God, though to you it seem foolishness to do so. I invite you to believe God as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 10:54:06 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL: gluadysquote:
Actually, it is because I have faith in creation that I accept evolution.
Please explain just what it is about the Genesis creation story that convinces you evolution is true.
The Genesis stories of creation give me the following theological axioms:
God is the creator of all.
God created the heavens and earth out of nothing by the sole power of his Word.
The Word of God is the active agent of creation (as we have confirmed later by John).
Creation is real, i.e. a real existing entity that is not itself divine, and exists separately from divinity, though dependent on God for its coming and remaining in being. Creation is not, as some other religious beliefs posit, an emanation from or expression of God, nor a dream of God, or in any other way an illusion. It is real and concrete just as we experience it.
God created a cosmos, i.e. a universe that functions as a harmonious whole according to a regular pattern of natural process.
God created humanity to be a part of this world. God gave to humanity the special responsibility to care for and rule this world in wisdom as the image of God in this world.
From these axioms I draw the following conclusions:
There is a reciprocity between the functions of sense and reason given to humanity and the orderliness of nature, such that the human mind has the capacity to seek out and understand the natural world which has been given into human care. Without such reciprocity, the creation mandate given to humanity would be impossible to fulfil.
Therefore we, as humans, have the capacity and the obligation to discover the word God has spoken into creation--what makes creation tick--so that we can responsibly carry out our God-given task in the creation.
I also note that theologically, the created order is an order of revelation: commonly called the general revelation. Such revelation is not sufficient to bring a sinner into a saving relationship with God, but it is nevertheless genuine revelation and not to be discounted as a word of God.
Hence our ancestors were correct to speak of God giving us two books: a book of words and a book of works. In reference to the general revelation, the book of works takes precedence over the book of words, for the scriptures were not given to replace the revelation of creation. In reference to the special revelation of Christ and his mission, the book of words takes precedence over the book of works which has nothing to say on this matter.
quote:
That is not a fact. It is atheist dogma. It is one of Satan’s lies.
Is it Satan who created our DNA?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 12:12:59 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3075
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
But let's begin with the fact that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. Complete nonsense, gluadys, for which you have not one shred of observational evidence! The true fact is that chimps and humans were both created on day 6 by the only God of the universe. My observational evidence for this historical fact comes first-hand from the only Eyewitness to the event. Do you have something else to share as a denied fact of creation, or just more imaginary fantasies?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 12:37:32 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 820
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Complete nonsense, gluadys, for which you have not one shred of observational evidence!
The evidence includes fusion of human chromosome 2, orthologous ERV's, and transitional fossils. There is so much evidence supporting this conclusion that it is treated as fact among biologists.
quote:
The true fact is that chimps and humans were both created on day 6 by the only God of the universe. My observational evidence for this historical fact comes first-hand from the only Eyewitness to the event. Do you have something else to share as a denied fact of creation, or just more imaginary fantasies?
Human chromosome 2, orthologous ERV's, and transitional fossils are not imaginary. Also, the author of Genesis was not an eyewitness to the start of the Universe.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 12:52:21 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3075
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
The evidence includes fusion of human chromosome 2, orthologous ERV's, and transitional fossils. There is so much evidence supporting this conclusion that it is treated as fact among biologists. I'm sorry you're not getting the meaning of observational evidence, Method. You have described interpretations of evidence which you believe are consistent with millions of years of common descent. No one has ever seen one kind of organism descend into another kind. In fact, experiments with numerous kinds of bacteria demonstrate a total absense of evolutionary descent over tens of thousands of generations.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 12:58:27 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 820
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
I'm sorry you're not getting the meaning of observational evidence, Method. You have described interpretations of evidence which you believe are consistent with millions of years of common descent.
Those are facts. There are two centromeres in human chromosome 2 as predicted by the theory of evolution. Orthologous ERV's fall into a nested hierarchy (fact) as predicted by the theory of evolution. There are fossils that have both human and chimp characteristics (fact). All of these uninterpretted facts are evidence of evolution. Only someone trying to protect dogma would pretend as if these facts did not exist.
quote:
No one has ever seen one kind of organism descend into another kind.
That is not needed for humans and chimps to share a common ancestor being that both humans and chimps are apes.
quote:
In fact, experiments with numerous kinds of bacteria demonstrate a total absense of evolutionary descent over tens of thousands of generations.
So each bacterial generation ends up with nearly the same DNA just by chance?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 1:02:30 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3075
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Only someone trying to protect dogma would pretend as if these facts did not exist. Yes, we see this quite regularly among the evolutionists posting here!
quote:
That is not needed for humans and chimps to share a common ancestor being that both humans and chimps are apes. And from what common ancestor did these alleged apes arise?
quote:
So each bacterial generation ends up with nearly the same DNA just by chance? Umm, no, that's by design of their Creator.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 1:19:31 PM
|
|
|
DreadPirateRandy
Posts: 6920
Joined: 6/5/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
We do not know the origin of it. There is nothing illogical about that.
I thought "God created" made it pretty clear.
quote:
No. I lack belief in pink unicorns. I don't have to acknowledge that a pink unicorn exists in order to not believe in it.
To point and stare into the sun and to say, "this does not exist" is as illogical as it is to look at the design of our universe and say, "a designer does not exist."
The difference in the comparison is that one is seen and the other isn't. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.
_____________________________
The lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 2:24:27 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
But let's begin with the fact that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. Complete nonsense, gluadys, for which you have not one shred of observational evidence! The true fact is that chimps and humans were both created on day 6 by the only God of the universe. My observational evidence for this historical fact comes first-hand from the only Eyewitness to the event. Do you have something else to share as a denied fact of creation, or just more imaginary fantasies?
We have observed the human genome. We have observed the chimpanzee genome. We have compared them both. We know exactly where they are alike and where they differ. Among other things we know which ERVs they share.
We have also observed dozens of fossils which have a mixture of human and chimpanzee traits, and/or traits intermediate between chimp and human. We can also observe that the oldest of these tends to be most like primitive primates and the most recent most like modern humans with a chronological grade between them.
So there is plenty of observational evidence.
And your "evidence" is not observed evidence at all, but the testimony -- whether of a human author or God doesn't really matter-- of a storyteller.
I suggest that a story about creation in the Holy Scriptures does not constitute a contradiction to the observed evidence supporting the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 2:27:24 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
You have described interpretations of evidence which you believe are consistent with millions of years of common descent.
Nevertheless, the evidence is still observed. It is concrete, real, empirical, not imaginary.
And the interpretations provided are the only ones that make sense of the observed evidence.
Until you can provide a better interpretation, this one stands as the best available.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 2:58:23 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 820
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Yes, we see this quite regularly among the evolutionists posting here!
Which facts am I ignoring?
quote:
And from what common ancestor did these alleged apes arise?
An ape common ancestor.
quote:
quote:
So each bacterial generation ends up with nearly the same DNA just by chance? Umm, no, that's by design of their Creator.
That design produces a nested hierarchy, the same nested hierarchy that apes (including humans) fall into. So you agree that there is observational evidence, right?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 3:04:36 PM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 718
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
Hence our ancestors were correct to speak of God giving us two books:
I don’t buy that “nature is God’s second book” nonsense.
First, if it were there would be absolutely NO conflict between the books. The Bible, God’s inspired word, the ONLY book we need, plainly states that plants were created BEFORE the sun and stars.
“And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day”. – Genesis 1:11-13
“And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.” – Genesis 1:16-19
Your “second book” teaches that the sun and stars preceded the existence of plants by billions of years.
Second, the Bible also makes it quite clear that the work of creation took six days, not six epochs of billions of years each.
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” – Exodus 20:11
Your “second book” teaches that creation week took billions of years to unfold.
Third, the “second book” you refer to has been cursed. Why would anyone accept the conclusions based on reading a cursed book over the conclusions based on reading a God ordained book?
If God gave us as “Scripture” two such contradictory books telling of the same event then He IS the author of confusion. If God is the author of confusion then He is a liar. If God is a liar then how can we believe anything in the Bible?
You provided a rather interesting and telling response to my request: “Please explain just what it is about the Genesis creation story that convinces you evolution is true.”
To put it simply, you don’t find anything in the Genesis creation story that convinces you evolution is true so you choose to believe a man-made story of origins over the God inspired story of origins.
quote:
Is it Satan who created our DNA?
No, but Satan did formulate the worldview required to accept the evolutionistic interpretations promoted as evidence.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 4:57:46 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
Hence our ancestors were correct to speak of God giving us two books:
I don’t buy that “nature is God’s second book” nonsense.
First, if it were there would be absolutely NO conflict between the books.
There is no conflict between the natural order God created and the scriptures God inspired.
There is only conflict between interpretations of the natural order (science) and interpretations of scripture (hermeneutics). When we can't find anything wrong with the science, we should look to problems with the hermeneutics.
quote:
Your “second book” teaches that the sun and stars preceded the existence of plants by billions of years.
I am glad you agree. So we have no problem here agreeing on what the message of God's creation is. Time then to see which hermenetic best reflects the reality God made for us.
quote:
Your “second book” teaches that creation week took billions of years to unfold.
So, you agree that the science of dating is sound and correct. When the science is right, the problem of contradiction must lie in how one interprets the scripture.
quote:
Third, the “second book” you refer to has been cursed. Why would anyone accept the conclusions based on reading a cursed book over the conclusions based on reading a God ordained book?
Neither nature nor scripture says the whole universe is cursed. And the curse that was put on the ground for Adam's sake was apparently lifted after the flood (Gen. 6:21)
quote:
If God is a liar then how can we believe anything in the Bible?
God is not a liar and the Bible does not lie. But we have to approach the scripture with humility and not presume that our understanding of it is correct.
quote:
You provided a rather interesting and telling response to my request: “Please explain just what it is about the Genesis creation story that convinces you evolution is true.”
To put it simply, you don’t find anything in the Genesis creation story that convinces you evolution is true so you choose to believe a man-made story of origins over the God inspired story of origins.
On the contrary, the response I gave is the foundation for accepting evolution as good science. That God speaks the truth in creation, just as God inspires men to write the truth in scripture, and that God made a world which we can know with reasonable confidence is the reason to accept evolution.
quote:
quote:
Is it Satan who created our DNA?
No, but Satan did formulate the worldview required to accept the evolutionistic interpretations promoted as evidence.
Can you provide an alternate interpretation of the comparison of the human #2 chromosome?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/27/2008 8:54:12 PM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
Is it Satan who created our DNA?
No, but Satan did formulate the worldview required to accept the evolutionistic interpretations promoted as evidence.
Can you provide an alternate interpretation of the comparison of the human #2 chromosome?
In the late 19th century it was assumed that all apes, humans included, had a common ancestor.
In the mid-20th century, we counted the chromosomes and discovered humans had 46 and the other apes had 48. It seemed like human evolution was on the verge of being completely debunked.
By the 21st century, we mapped the DNA in ape chromosomes and discovered where the missing chromosomes were found.
This is how it works in practice, two steps forward one step back.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/28/2008 2:03:16 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 718
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
quote:
Your “second book” teaches that the sun and stars preceded the existence of plants by billions of years.
I am glad you agree. So we have no problem here agreeing on what the message of God's creation is.
The ONLY thing that we could possibly be agreeing on at this point is that “the message of God’s creation” as revealed in Scripture is in diametric opposition to the atheistic interpretations of nature you choose to accept. If that is not what you are saying then any claim that I agree with you is a gross error. The simple fact that I agree that your “second book” teaches that the sun and stars preceded the existence of plants by billions of years is not an implication in any way that I agree with that teaching as being true.
quote:
Time then to see which hermenetic best reflects the reality God made for us.
No. It is time to dump the atheism and believe what God has plainly presented in Scripture. I.e. God created plants BEFORE He created the sun and stars and that death is the result of sin. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;” – Romans 5:12a
Your “second book” teaches, in diametric opposition to Scripture, that death and sin are unrelated.
quote:
So, you agree that the science of dating is sound and correct.
NO! I agree that it contradicts Scripture. NOTHING that contradicts Scripture can rightly be called sound or correct.
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:” – Galatians 1:6
Your “second book” is a ‘another gospel’.
quote:
Neither nature nor scripture says the whole universe is cursed.
I won’t argue that your “second book” agrees with Scripture on the sin curse, however:
“For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” – Romans 8:22
quote:
And the curse that was put on the ground for Adam's sake was apparently lifted after the flood (Gen. 6:21)
???????????????
“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;” – Genesis 3:17-18a
Gee, I didn’t realize thorns and thistles quit growing after the flood. Thanks for filling me in on that important fact.
quote:
quote:
To put it simply, you don’t find anything in the Genesis creation story that convinces you evolution is true so you choose to believe a man-made story of origins over the God inspired story of origins.
On the contrary, the response I gave is the foundation for accepting evolution as good science.
There is absolutely NOTHING contrary about my synopsis. You presented absolutely nothing from Scripture to support evolution, but rather turned to your “second book” as authoritative over Scripture.
quote:
That God speaks the truth in creation, just as God inspires men to write the truth in scripture
The only way your “second book” philosophy could be correct is if God gave us two accounts of origins that are in diametric opposition to each other. Doing so would make God the author of confusion making Him a liar.
You say you don’t call God a liar but your actions (acceptance of the “second book” philosophy) call God a liar. When I was growing up my Dad taught me that actions speak louder than words.
quote:
and that God made a world which we can know with reasonable confidence is the reason to accept evolution.
That is ONLY correct IF the “second book” philosophy is correct and I have demonstrated that the “second book” philosophy is a satanic lie.
quote:
Can you provide an alternate interpretation of the comparison of the human #2 chromosome?
Apes and man were created physically quite similar. Therefore their genomes are quite similar.
I reject your “second book” philosophy as a Satanic lie and have presented Scriptural support for that rejection.
You blindly cling to that “second book” making God out as a liar.
IOW, our dispute boils down to the fact that I am calling Satan a liar by rejecting the false doctrines taught in your “second book” and you are calling God a liar by accepting your “second book” as authoritative over Scripture. The obvious diametric opposition between Scripture and your “second book” attests to that fact.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/28/2008 2:18:55 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 718
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:swan42quote:
This is how it works in practice, two steps forward one step back.
So, if tomorrow science uncovers something in the genomes that refutes the common ancestor doctrine will you dump that doctrine or keep it with faith that science will again flip-flop on the issue?
If you keep it how will you justify holding onto a doctrine that contradicts science?
I would also appreciate an answer to a question I asked you. Since you put Christian fundamentalists on par with Islamic fundamentalists do you put Christianity on par with Islam?
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/28/2008 6:49:54 AM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 2031
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Do you actually hold it permissible, even mandatory, to cling to an interpretation of scripture that denies the facts of the creation? And just exactly what "fact" of creation do you think I'm denying?
A good many if you subscribe to young-earth creationism. But let's begin with the fact that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor.
I think you'd have an easier time with an example from either astronomy or geology.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/28/2008 7:09:08 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
I reject your “second book” philosophy as a Satanic lie and have presented Scriptural support for that rejection.
You blindly cling to that “second book” making God out as a liar.
How can you possibly say that when it is blindingly obvious it's your interpretation that contradicts reality, and therefore is equivalent to calling God a liar? I've said it countless times now, but I'll say it again... I don't think its possible to hold a literalist view of creation without implying that God is deceitful.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/28/2008 8:02:07 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: iluvatar
I think you'd have an easier time with an example from either astronomy or geology.
-Dan.
Maybe with someone other than unclemonkey.
Besides, I am more comfortable with biology than with astronomy or geology.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/28/2008 8:03:22 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
ORIGINAL:gluadysquote:
quote:
Your “second book” teaches that the sun and stars preceded the existence of plants by billions of years.
I am glad you agree. So we have no problem here agreeing on what the message of God's creation is.
The simple fact that I agree that your “second book” teaches that the sun and stars preceded the existence of plants by billions of years is not an implication in any way that I agree with that teaching as being true.
Well, the "second book" is God's creation, so you are agreeing that God's creation teaches that the sun and stars preceded the existence of plants. You are also accusing God's creation of false witness.
I do not believe God would put a false witness in creation or in scripture. If they look contradictory to me, I assume the problem is in my inadequate understanding of one or both, not in what God provided us.
quote:
quote:
Time then to see which hermenetic best reflects the reality God made for us.
No. It is time to dump the atheism
I am not an atheist. I am following a line of theological thought that was standard in Christianity through all the middle ages and into the 19th century. Many of your fathers in the faith adhered to the principle that God's Word in scripture and God's Word in creation were complementary and harmonious. European scientists of the 17th-19th centuries (who were almost all Christian) spoke of science as "discovering the work of God in creation."
In this respect, it is fundamentalism which has rejected the historic Christian understanding and thrown out the doctrine of creation in favour of gnosticism.
quote:
quote:
Neither nature nor scripture says the whole universe is cursed.
I won’t argue that your “second book” agrees with Scripture on the sin curse, however:
“For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” – Romans 8:22
To be in pain is not the same as to be cursed. The innocent often suffer. Certainly, the earth has suffered since humanity sinned and deserted its duty of care toward the earth and its creatures.
quote:
quote:
And the curse that was put on the ground for Adam's sake was apparently lifted after the flood (Gen. 6:21)
???????????????
Gee, I didn’t realize thorns and thistles quit growing after the flood. Thanks for filling me in on that important fact.
Yet we still have God saying he will no more curse the earth. Maybe lifting the curse simply didn't do away with the thorns and thistles already there.
quote:
You presented absolutely nothing from Scripture to support evolution, but rather turned to your “second book” as authoritative over Scripture.
No, I am saying scripture speaks of the authority of creation. Does not scripture say that:
God is the creator of all.?
How can creation then, say anything other than what God intended it to say?
Does not scripture say that:
God created the heavens and earth out of nothing by the sole power of his Word.
The Word of God is the active agent of creation (as we have confirmed later by John).
The very same Word which scripture attests visited us in person in Jesus Christ, is the Word that made heaven and earth. That Word is God himself. So, according to scripture, is not God's own Word the guarantee of the truth of creation?
It is not necessary to set creation "over" scripture or vice versa. Both come from the same source of truth and cannot in any way contradict each other.
Any seeming contradiction lies only in the limitation of fallible human minds.
quote:
quote:
Can you provide an alternate interpretation of the comparison of the human #2 chromosome?
Apes and man were created physically quite similar. Therefore their genomes are quite similar.
Their genomes could be similar without a fusion of two chromosomes into one. The explanation needs to be more specific.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/28/2008 9:48:02 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1026
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
the “second book” philosophy is a satanic lie.
I reject your “second book” philosophy as a Satanic lie and have presented Scriptural support for that rejection.
You blindly cling to that “second book” making God out as a liar.
... I am calling Satan a liar by rejecting the false doctrines taught in your “second book” and you are calling God a liar by accepting your “second book” as authoritative over Scripture.
Although you occasionally squeeze a 'philosophy' in there, you are really stating that the external universe is a Satanic lie. The ratio of various radionuclides in various rocks is not philosophy, but fact. The earth and the universe has, at the very least, the appearance of age. If you hold to a young earth perspective, do you believe the atomic and isotopic composition of the rocks of the earth, moon and meteorites are the work of a deceptive God or a deceptive Satan?
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: CONSPIRACY!!! - 5/28/2008 10:25:27 AM
|
|
|
unclemonkey
Posts: 718
Joined: 5/14/2006
Status: offline
|
ORIGINAL:drj11quote:
How can you possibly say that when it is blindingly obvious it's your interpretation that contradicts reality, and therefore is equivalent to calling God a liar?.
The irony of this is so glaring it is humorous. A confused atheist jumping to gluadys’ defense on Biblical issues.
quote:
I don't think its possible to hold a literalist view of creation without implying that God is deceitful.
You have missed the point, but you are not far off. It is not possible to put a higher priority on human reasoning than God’s written word without implying that God is deceitful.
_____________________________
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." - John 5:46
Visit my home church.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
