Jump to content


Photo

What Would It Take For A Evolutionist To Consider Creation?


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#121 Falconjudge

Falconjudge

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Montana

Posted 07 September 2011 - 09:09 AM

Quote: Hmm. An 'old earth creationist, huh'? I smell a rat. B)

Sorry, straight-up evolutionist. Old earth Creationism is just a mixed-up version of young-earth. It makes no sense from the borderline-sad literalistic ideology, and even less from a scientific and factual perspective. How does one deny evolution by saying everything poofed into being, and then say that it still took a lot of time? I've never understood that. Either accept the facts, or live without logic and ignore everything to believe what you want to, that a book written 3000 after the fact can accurately describe the beginning of the universe that none of the writers were there for. Trying to look smart by taking a little from column A and a little from column B just looks silly. At least the self-illusionists have a solidarity of mind that garners respect!

#122 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 September 2011 - 10:36 AM

Quote: Hmm. An 'old earth creationist, huh'? I smell a rat. B)

Sorry, straight-up evolutionist. Old earth Creationism is just a mixed-up version of young-earth. It makes no sense from the borderline-sad literalistic ideology, and even less from a scientific and factual perspective. How does one deny evolution by saying everything poofed into being, and then say that it still took a lot of time? I've never understood that. Either accept the facts, or live without logic and ignore everything to believe what you want to, that a book written 3000 after the fact can accurately describe the beginning of the universe that none of the writers were there for. Trying to look smart by taking a little from column A and a little from column B just looks silly. At least the self-illusionists have a solidarity of mind that garners respect!


Not that much different from believing in evolution and God. At what point in the evolution process did a soul evolve so that we could be saved? And what sin did Christ die for on the cross if evolution created everything? A naturalistic theory denies the supernatural and therefore denies why Christ died on the cross.

Ever wonder why most evolutionists don;t have much problem with TE belief? It's because evolution is in control of God and anything supernatural is denied. And when the supernatural is denied so is the power of God. God's word warns us about this...

2tim 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Also I noticed your sig. The reason your faith slips is because evolution teaches you to "only" use logic, reason. And to only believe in naturalism. All of which denies the reasons that faith in the super natural need to exist. Reason and logic is a different form of faith with different rules. These rules make it the exact opposite of supernatural faith and therefore cannot co-exist with faith in God.

If by choice you choose reason and logic that has rules that "only" support the natural, then your mind set will always be in conflict with God. And your commitment to either side will be in turmoil as if a war is going on in your thought life. Then you will eventually come to a crossroads where "you" have to make the decision.

Faith in reason and logic always appeals to the flesh, which makes it have a powerful draw. Faith in the supernatural makes you have to have total faith in another, which does not appeal to the flesh. So if you "prefer" faith in reason and logic, you will continue to slip.

The bottom line is, do you want faith in salvation and eternal life, or do you want faith in a life and death that is meaningless?

#123 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 September 2011 - 11:31 AM

Quote: Hmm. An 'old earth creationist, huh'? I smell a rat. B)

Sorry, straight-up evolutionist.

Indeed, given the statement, I would agree with your first word.


Old earth Creationism is just a mixed-up version of young-earth.

As is “theistic evolutionist”; both attempt to re-interpret literal Biblical facts, both have a spiritual/metaphysical/ethereal/supernatural origin of sorts.


It makes no sense from the borderline-sad literalistic ideology, and even less from a scientific and factual perspective.

Two major problems with your above statement:

First, you attach (from ignorance??) your negative connotation for a “sad literalistic ideology” as an accusation that you have better “factual” knowledge of our origins than the Biblical account. The problems with this are that you have absolutely no “first hand” knowledge to support your assertion (an accusation you level later in your dissertation, but attempt to use in your favor throughout), AND you attempt to assert that only YOUR scientific opinion is the correct one (as in, it is the ONLY “factual perspective”).

Second, exactly what “facts” are you speaking about that counter the literal Biblical account? Or are you rather speaking of your perspective concerning how “some phenomena” can be explained, so-as-to support your worldview? I would ask that you provide the “facts” (not mere opinion and “perspective”) that destroy the literal Biblical account. I would also request that you review the word “prospective”.


How does one deny evolution by saying everything poofed into being, and then say that it still took a lot of time?

Does the Bible say that everything “poofed into being”? Further, even if it did, do you have “factual evidence” that it did not (i.e. were you there)?

I've never understood that.

I agree, there is no foundational substantiation for either.

Either accept the facts, or live without logic and ignore everything to believe what you want to, that a book written 3000 after the fact can accurately describe the beginning of the universe that none of the writers were there for.

Once again, what facts? You are still superimposing your world view as “factual” when it is not, then claiming that someone else’s is not. This is a bit of a hypocritical stance, and I would suggest that you provide these “facts” to support your assertions. I would also remind you, that neither YOU, nor anyone YOU know were there so-as-to “accurately describe the beginning of the universe”.

Trying to look smart by taking a little from column A and a little from column B just looks silly. At least the self-illusionists have a solidarity of mind that garners respect!


Trying to look smart by making assertions that you have only opinion, presupposition and “a priori” claims as facts just looks silly.

Further, claiming in your signature “I'm looking for a reason to believe the Bible as truth. My faith is slipping; I really need some help”, then making the claims that you are making, smacks of hypocrisy as well. The person truly “looking” doesn’t make so bold of statements, they ask questions and are willing to learn.

#124 Falconjudge

Falconjudge

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Montana

Posted 07 September 2011 - 01:42 PM

Indeed, given the statement, I would agree with your first word.



As is “theistic evolutionist”; both attempt to re-interpret literal Biblical facts, both have a spiritual/metaphysical/ethereal/supernatural origin of sorts.



Two major problems with your above statement:

First, you attach (from ignorance??) your negative connotation for a “sad literalistic ideology” as an accusation that you have better “factual” knowledge of our origins than the Biblical account. The problems with this are that you have absolutely no “first hand” knowledge to support your assertion (an accusation you level later in your dissertation, but attempt to use in your favor throughout), AND you attempt to assert that only YOUR scientific opinion is the correct one (as in, it is the ONLY “factual perspective”).

Second, exactly what “facts” are you speaking about that counter the literal Biblical account? Or are you rather speaking of your perspective concerning how “some phenomena” can be explained, so-as-to support your worldview? I would ask that you provide the “facts” (not mere opinion and “perspective”) that destroy the literal Biblical account. I would also request that you review the word “prospective”.



Does the Bible say that everything “poofed into being”? Further, even if it did, do you have “factual evidence” that it did not (i.e. were you there)?


I agree, there is no foundational substantiation for either.


Once again, what facts? You are still superimposing your world view as “factual” when it is not, then claiming that someone else’s is not. This is a bit of a hypocritical stance, and I would suggest that you provide these “facts” to support your assertions. I would also remind you, that neither YOU, nor anyone YOU know were there so-as-to “accurately describe the beginning of the universe”.



Trying to look smart by making assertions that you have only opinion, presupposition and “a priori” claims as facts just looks silly.

Further, claiming in your signature “I'm looking for a reason to believe the Bible as truth. My faith is slipping; I really need some help”, then making the claims that you are making, smacks of hypocrisy as well. The person truly “looking” doesn’t make so bold of statements, they ask questions and are willing to learn.


I'm not good with managing quotes, so I'll answer in the body of my paragraph.

For one thing, you are a hypocrite, both in general and for calling me such. We all are, I don't mind, and I know I am. It's part of the human condition. I say this for one reason: You ask for 'evidence', or 'proof', and then ignore it when provided. In science threads, you never acknowledge the science when it's presented by someone who doesn't agree with you (I'm generalizing, of course, since that's how it has been in every creationist "debate" site I've been to). Don't ask for evidence if you insist on shoving your fingers in your ears and pointing to yet more either falsified or illogical "data" to make your points for you.

For another, you point to Biblical "facts". Show them to be so if you expect the same from me. You can't just say, "The Bible said it, so it must be true."

And yes, I do have facts better than the Biblical account, because it is a fact that God communicates with man, in the Bible, mostly through dreams and visions. It is also generally accepted (and I got this out of my study Bible) that Moses wrote the book of Genesis. Do you believe that dreams in the Bible are to be taken literally? Look at Daniel's, if so. Or any other. The language in the first two chapters of Genesis are clearly written in the same lucid sort of way as a dream would be without the self-acknowledgment of the narrator. Plus, it's been (for a fact) translated over and over again to get to its current point, meaning even what we have is likely inaccurate. Beyond that, the facts (the way animals are genetically inter-related, the layering of sedimentary rock and how specific creatures are found in different layers, the fact that vertebrates can't have a breeding population of 2 people without severe genetic defects, the fact that the Ark couldn't fit today's bio-diversity into it in twos coupled with the fact that said biodiversity couldn't reach today's level in only 6000 years from a small pool of "base" animals, the fact that starlight takes millions of years to reach Earth but took only a matter of days in Genesis, etc etc etc) point to it not being true. These are observable facts, not dogma from the words of mere men who lived 3000 years ago. Which do you wish to believe, the work of Gods hands, or the flawed, mistranslated words of sinful man?

Yes, the Bible said it poofed. God said it, and it happened. That's your position. Deny that, and you deny your own perspective. Was I there? No. Was the author, Moses? Also no. Don't, for heaven's sake, hold me to a higher standard than Moses. Does Moses have proof, beyond his own word? Nope. And I have never seen a Creationist piece of evidence that isn't either a logical fallacy or an outright, exposed lie.

To your next point, skipping your smug and unfounded assertion that evolution has no foundation, again, I was not there, and neither were you or Moses. Please avoid that point in the future, as it's self-defeating and a most definite strawman. Also, I'll bet you're prepared to insult my love of logic, like the guy before you. Did God not give us the ability to rationalize? Or is that from Satan? And if so, why do you think so? Because God said so? Sounds like a convenient way to use fear to stop people from questioning things.

Which leads to my last point: I was raised YEC. Until recently, I read the Bible everyday. That's the thing: As I read my study Bible, things kept cropping up in my mind. Inconsistencies, contradictions, fallacies, dating and translation issues. I forced these things away from my mind, because they weren't what I was "supposed" to believe. Then, a bit ago, they all hit me like a hammer, at once, and I realized that every religion in the world is exactly the same way (God(s) chose US, we deserve land and salvation, all others should/will die/go to hell). All have their own history, too, but I realized that historical fact and theological fact are two completely separate things. Now I just want to be comfortable in my religion, with the God I pledged my life to (I am a man of my word, I will never be an atheist... but I also don't want to serve a version of Him that isn't who he actually is. I believe there is only one God and I always will, but I don't want to ignore the work of his hands.). All I want is a reason to go back to thinking the Bible is true and reliable, something, anything that isn't "The Bible says that the Bible is the word of God, so it must be true!" like my mother and pastor say. All I want is a truth that doesn't need to point to itself.

#125 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 September 2011 - 03:08 PM

I'm not good with managing quotes, so I'll answer in the body of my paragraph.


All you have to remember in quoting is the quote command by itself starts the quote box, and putting a forward slash / before the quote command ends it.

For one thing, you are a hypocrite, both in general and for calling me such. We all are, I don't mind, and I know I am. It's part of the human condition. I say this for one reason: You ask for 'evidence', or 'proof', and then ignore it when provided. In science threads, you never acknowledge the science when it's presented by someone who doesn't agree with you (I'm generalizing, of course, since that's how it has been in every creationist "debate" site I've been to). Don't ask for evidence if you insist on shoving your fingers in your ears and pointing to yet more either falsified or illogical "data" to make your points for you.

For another, you point to Biblical "facts". Show them to be so if you expect the same from me. You can't just say, "The Bible said it, so it must be true."


And that sounds more like a comment an atheist would make than a theist would.

And yes, I do have facts better than the Biblical account, because it is a fact that God communicates with man, in the Bible, mostly through dreams and visions. It is also generally accepted (and I got this out of my study Bible) that Moses wrote the book of Genesis. Do you believe that dreams in the Bible are to be taken literally? Look at Daniel's, if so. Or any other. The language in the first two chapters of Genesis are clearly written in the same lucid sort of way as a dream would be without the self-acknowledgment of the narrator. Plus, it's been (for a fact) translated over and over again to get to its current point, meaning even what we have is likely inaccurate. Beyond that, the facts (the way animals are genetically inter-related, the layering of sedimentary rock and how specific creatures are found in different layers, the fact that vertebrates can't have a breeding population of 2 people without severe genetic defects, the fact that the Ark couldn't fit today's bio-diversity into it in twos coupled with the fact that said biodiversity couldn't reach today's level in only 6000 years from a small pool of "base" animals, the fact that starlight takes millions of years to reach Earth but took only a matter of days in Genesis, etc etc etc) point to it not being true. These are observable facts, not dogma from the words of mere men who lived 3000 years ago. Which do you wish to believe, the work of Gods hands, or the flawed, mistranslated words of sinful man?


All atheist points. I see nothing theist here.

Yes, the Bible said it poofed. God said it, and it happened. That's your position. Deny that, and you deny your own perspective. Was I there? No. Was the author, Moses? Also no. Don't, for heaven's sake, hold me to a higher standard than Moses. Does Moses have proof, beyond his own word? Nope. And I have never seen a Creationist piece of evidence that isn't either a logical fallacy or an outright, exposed lie.

To your next point, skipping your smug and unfounded assertion that evolution has no foundation, again, I was not there, and neither were you or Moses. Please avoid that point in the future, as it's self-defeating and a most definite strawman. Also, I'll bet you're prepared to insult my love of logic, like the guy before you. Did God not give us the ability to rationalize? Or is that from Satan? And if so, why do you think so? Because God said so? Sounds like a convenient way to use fear to stop people from questioning things.

Which leads to my last point: I was raised YEC. Until recently, I read the Bible everyday. That's the thing: As I read my study Bible, things kept cropping up in my mind. Inconsistencies, contradictions, fallacies, dating and translation issues. I forced these things away from my mind, because they weren't what I was "supposed" to believe. Then, a bit ago, they all hit me like a hammer, at once, and I realized that every religion in the world is exactly the same way (God(s) chose US, we deserve land and salvation, all others should/will die/go to hell). All have their own history, too, but I realized that historical fact and theological fact are two completely separate things. Now I just want to be comfortable in my religion, with the God I pledged my life to (I am a man of my word, I will never be an atheist... but I also don't want to serve a version of Him that isn't who he actually is. I believe there is only one God and I always will, but I don't want to ignore the work of his hands.). All I want is a reason to go back to thinking the Bible is true and reliable, something, anything that isn't "The Bible says that the Bible is the word of God, so it must be true!" like my mother and pastor say. All I want is a truth that doesn't need to point to itself.


All the points you make are atheist ones. Atheist justifications almost verbatim from atheist sites. It seems to me you already made your decision, and you want someone to meet some standards you know cannot be met so you can justify your decision.

Faith in God is a choice, you choose to have it or not.

Question: With all that you have stated, what would it take to change your mind? A standard that cannot be met in a believe that requires more faith and less control than you are willing to submit to, right?

What I get from all of this is that you don't like God having any control, so you decide to believe what gives you control. Basically you want a humanistic faith that you control and no one else. So you find fault with the opposite of that to justify your new found belief. Every point you bring up is the same song and dance most every atheist does. We hear it all the time here. As Solomon said: There is nothing new under the sun.

So if what you post here is nothing new, and what you post is what most atheists use to justify their disbelief. Then why do you say these things?

#126 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 September 2011 - 05:06 PM

I'm not good with managing quotes, so I'll answer in the body of my paragraph.

They can be a bit of a pain until you get use to them.

For one thing, you are a hypocrite, both in general and for calling me such.

Let’s see, I provide evidence that you are taking an hypocritical stance, and you claim that I am a hypocrite (and in fact we all are??) for proving that you took a hypocritical stance? I can see that you are going to have big problems….

We all are, I don't mind, and I know I am. It's part of the human condition.

So… being a hypocrite is “part of the human condition” now? So, by that logic, ALL humans are hypocrites? Can you provide any substantiation for your assertion?

I say this for one reason: You ask for 'evidence', or 'proof', and then ignore it when provided.

Can you please back up your assertion, and provide where I ignored your evidence (i.e. the evidence you provided) that backs up your assertion?

In science threads, you never acknowledge the science when it's presented by someone who doesn't agree with you (I'm generalizing, of course, since that's how it has been in every creationist "debate" site I've been to).

So, now you’re backing up your accusations against me with generalizations? Things you’ve heard other creationists say at other sites?

*** Mod Hat On*** “Clear cases of misrepresentation, quoting out of context, or unsubstantiated hearsay” are violations of this forums rules. This is a warning: if you are going to side-step your obligation for providing evidence for your assertions, by purposefully “misrepresenting” ANYONE’S words with “unsubstantiated hearsay”, you’ll be taken to the next level(s) of correction; including removal from the forum.

I would suggest that you read the forum rules (that you agreed to prior to being accepted here) at:
http://www.evolution...tion=boardrules
*** Mod Hat Off***

#127 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 September 2011 - 05:07 PM

Don't ask for evidence if you insist on shoving your fingers in your ears and pointing to yet more either falsified or illogical "data" to make your points for you.

Once again, Can you please back up your assertion, and provide where I ignored your evidence (i.e. the evidence you provided) that backs up your assertion?

For another, you point to Biblical "facts". Show them to be so if you expect the same from me. You can't just say, "The Bible said it, so it must be true."

There are many provable facts in the Bible Falconjudge, and if you have any particular problems, I will be more than happy to discuss them with you. But, keep in mind, you are the one throwing accusations around, and it is up to you to provide the evidence to back up your assertions.

But, more importantly, can you provide where I said "The Bible said it, so it must be true."?

And yes, I do have facts better than the Biblical account, because it is a fact that God communicates with man, in the Bible, mostly through dreams and visions. It is also generally accepted (and I got this out of my study Bible) that Moses wrote the book of Genesis. Do you believe that dreams in the Bible are to be taken literally? Look at Daniel's, if so. Or any other.

Actually, you are incorrect. God communicated with man in many different ways, and dreams were a very small percentage of those communications. In fact, the communications between Jesus and His disciples (and others) itself far outweighs the amount of “dream” communications. If you spent a little more time in your study Bible, you’d know this.


The language in the first two chapters of Genesis are clearly written in the same lucid sort of way as a dream would be without the self-acknowledgment of the narrator.

Once again, you are incorrect. The language of the first THREE chapters of Genesis is clearly written literally. If you would like to provide evidences for your accusations, you are more than free to do so.

#128 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 September 2011 - 05:09 PM

Plus, it's been (for a fact) translated over and over again to get to its current point, meaning even what we have is likely inaccurate.

Really? Can you please provide evidence for these many translations, and how they differ from what we had previous to the first century (Old Testament) and the first century (New Testament)? In other words, can you provide evidence that we cannot go to the first century, and get to the nub of any problems you have with the Bible?

Beyond that, the facts (the way animals are genetically inter-related, the layering of sedimentary rock and how specific creatures are found in different layers, the fact that vertebrates can't have a breeding population of 2 people without severe genetic defects, the fact that the Ark couldn't fit today's bio-diversity into it in twos coupled with the fact that said biodiversity couldn't reach today's level in only 6000 years from a small pool of "base" animals, the fact that starlight takes millions of years to reach Earth but took only a matter of days in Genesis, etc etc etc) point to it not being true. These are observable facts, not dogma from the words of mere men who lived 3000 years ago. Which do you wish to believe, the work of Gods hands, or the flawed, mistranslated words of sinful man?

Genetic inter-relatedness gives as much evidence for common design as it ever would for common descent. Macro-evolution is nothing more than a presupposition, at best (unless you think you have some evidence???). In fact, even the evolutionist needs God/a prime mover/an Initial causer before it could even think about happening. Materialistic evolutionists don’t have a leg to stand on in the conversation.

Floods provide the layering of sedimentary rock, further specific creatures are found on mountain tops. Also, were your there to state emphatically (in other words… Do you have the facts?) how it all happened? Remember, YOU were the one who brought this into question, so stand by your own standard.

How many animals could fit on the arc? Do you know the answer for that? Also, were your there to state emphatically (in other words… Do you have the facts?) how it all happened? Remember, YOU were the one who brought this into question, so stand by your own standard.

You have absolutely no idea how long it takes for light to get from the furthest reaches of our universe to us. Remember your standard (were you there to make the measurements?)…

We can get into any of these arguments if you’d like, but you fail at your own standard (were you there?)

Yes, the Bible said it poofed. God said it, and it happened. That's your position. Deny that, and you deny your own perspective. Was I there? No. Was the author, Moses? Also no. Don't, for heaven's sake, hold me to a higher standard than Moses. Does Moses have proof, beyond his own word? Nope. And I have never seen a Creationist piece of evidence that isn't either a logical fallacy or an outright, exposed lie.

The Bible is replete with eye-witness evidence. Do YOU have contrary contemporaneous evidences? Or are you simply proceeding on your “a priory” presuppositions? Further, Moses didn’t have to be there, because he (Moses) was getting his information from someone who was. And am I holding you to a higher standard than Moses? Absolutely not! I am holding you to your own standards AND the forum standards.

Yes, Moses has proof beyond his own word? Absolutely! No less than Jesus Himself testified to the validity of Moses (as He did for Daniel AND Genesis). But, you have a study Bible, you should already know this.

#129 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 September 2011 - 05:10 PM

To your next point, skipping your smug and unfounded assertion that evolution has no foundation, again, I was not there, and neither were you or Moses. Please avoid that point in the future, as it's self-defeating and a most definite strawman.

First, provide where I was smug for pointing out your misconceptions.
Second, actually refute my refutation of your misconceptions.
Third, hold up to your own standard.
Fourth, provide where my refutation was either self-stultifying OR a straw man.
And lastly, don’t tell me what to avoid when it is just to keep you from have to provide evidence for your assertions.

Also, I'll bet you're prepared to insult my love of logic, like the guy before you.

Then once again, you’d be on the losing end of that bet. The only thing I would do is attempt to get you to understand your use of fallacious logic.

Did God not give us the ability to rationalize?

Absolutely…. In fact, the name for Jesus in John one is THE LOGOS…

Or is that from Satan? And if so, why do you think so? Because God said so? Sounds like a convenient way to use fear to stop people from questioning things.

Once again, you are attempting to malign my words. The only thing Satan can do is twist logic (see Genesis chapter three). I love when people question things, as I question a great many things myself. I just won’t allow fallacious logic to go unexposed here.

Which leads to my last point: I was raised YEC. Until recently, I read the Bible everyday.

That’s fine; I was raised as a hedonistic atheistic evolutionist. And I read the Bible everyday (now) as well.

That's the thing: As I read my study Bible, things kept cropping up in my mind. Inconsistencies, contradictions, fallacies, dating and translation issues.

Then, by all means, provide these “Inconsistencies, contradictions, fallacies, dating and translation issues” that you are attempting to claim. I think you’ll soon find that you are “misinformed” and “misunderstand” what you think are “Inconsistencies, contradictions, fallacies, dating and translation issues”…

#130 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 07 September 2011 - 05:19 PM

its my observation that most , sadly, theistic evos have one foot in the door of the cross and one foot in downright diestic thinking or athiesm.

well said ron.if one wants to listen to the athiestic clamor for proof and takes the bible completely that way then why bother with the cross?does one just believe that without being able to examine that? how does one test that the man jesus said who he is? if we were cruficy a good sample of men or women all would die and none would come back to life.

so why should i listen to naturalists and so on who dont care about Gods holy word in the first place?

#131 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 September 2011 - 03:04 AM

its my observation that most , sadly, theistic evos have one foot in the door of the cross and one foot in downright diestic thinking or athiesm.

well said ron.if one wants to listen to the athiestic clamor for proof and takes the bible completely that way then why bother with the cross?does one just believe that without being able to examine that? how does one test that the man jesus said who he is? if we were cruficy a good sample of men or women all would die and none would come back to life.

so why should i listen to naturalists and so on who dont care about Gods holy word in the first place?


I think its also important to note that we find theistic evolutionists claiming to be "theistic", then, as Ike correcly pointed out, takes atheistic stances at every turn.

#132 Falconjudge

Falconjudge

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Montana

Posted 08 September 2011 - 07:20 AM

... You seem to be missing a vital part of the argument. Your side, to be exact. You can't just say, "the Bible has facts" without listing examples. I admit my case is thin at best, but at least I provided some examples. You, however, ask for them (while refuting them with what amounts to the word, "no"), without providing any yourself. Post examples of proven facts. Post examples of how you know, for a fact, that Moses got the knowledge first hand. Last time I checked, the one who said God spoke to him was Moses himself, correct? Anything to back that up, beyond words of himself and those who came after? Examples of non-historical, i.e. theological, events in the Bible being proven true. Don't like being called a hypocrite? Rise to your own standard. Don't just say, "We have proof!" then not provide any, unless you expect me to do the same. Show what supports creationism. Don't just say it does.

And if I act like an atheist, I want you to know, not speaking like a Christian =/= speaking like an atheist. There are other beliefs in the world other than yours, despite the fact that you don't consider those "ordained".

As for the vision thing, I say that because I'm going off the Old Testament only. I've read the New Testament through twice, and I usually leave it out because the Gospels were written 30 years after the fact, and seem to be "tracts" to get people to believe in a new religion. Plus, the words of Paul are both self-contradictory in terms of the Hebrew Law, somewhat vague as well as misogynistic, and also completely incompatible with Mathew's Gospel, or at least the Sermon on the Mount. (I should mention that I have also read: Exodus, a lot of Genesis, Psalms and Proverbs, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and a lot of Chronicles and Kings.)

I need rational help. I want to believe. I'm uncomfortable not believing. But I just want something to alleviate my doubts. I try to be harsh to get a response (though I believe in the points I make, until I get some actual refutations as to their truth rather than, "you weren't there and don't know"). I just want some rational reason to believe again.

#133 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 September 2011 - 10:44 AM

... You seem to be missing a vital part of the argument.


Here’s the thing… Your attempt to revert the blame of your actions to everyone else, simply because you cannot provide the evidence (i.e. facts) to back up your assertions, is evident. And continually doing so will only prove a cause for your removal from this forum, because you have been warned about false and misleading accusations. Further, as I stated earlier, you made assertions that you have yet to provide other than mere opinion for. AND, I held you to the standard YOU attempted to hold others to.

And, as to your accusation that the Bible has no facts in it, and my counter that it is indeed “replete” with facts that you are refusing to accept (as evidenced by your claim to read your study Bible daily): Just the eyewitnesses of one Jesus Christ alone, His ministry, His death, burial and resurrection, and continued mission alone totally defeat your assertion. Now, you can simply SAY that you don’t “believe” (a faith statement) that it is true, but you have absolutely NO contemporaneous OR modern evidence to counter ANY of the evidences of the Historicity of said Jesus Christ. When you can provide evidences and FACTS against one Jesus Christ, we will then discuss the Old Testament. But, before you can even do that YOU have a requirement to provide the Factual evidences FOR macro-evolution and AGAINST the Literal Biblical Creation account… Not mere opinion, BUT Empirical Facts…

#134 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 September 2011 - 01:18 PM

... You seem to be missing a vital part of the argument. Your side, to be exact. You can't just say, "the Bible has facts" without listing examples. I admit my case is thin at best, but at least I provided some examples. You, however, ask for them (while refuting them with what amounts to the word, "no"), without providing any yourself. Post examples of proven facts. Post examples of how you know, for a fact, that Moses got the knowledge first hand. Last time I checked, the one who said God spoke to him was Moses himself, correct? Anything to back that up, beyond words of himself and those who came after? Examples of non-historical, i.e. theological, events in the Bible being proven true. Don't like being called a hypocrite? Rise to your own standard. Don't just say, "We have proof!" then not provide any, unless you expect me to do the same. Show what supports creationism. Don't just say it does.

And if I act like an atheist, I want you to know, not speaking like a Christian =/= speaking like an atheist. There are other beliefs in the world other than yours, despite the fact that you don't consider those "ordained".

As for the vision thing, I say that because I'm going off the Old Testament only. I've read the New Testament through twice, and I usually leave it out because the Gospels were written 30 years after the fact, and seem to be "tracts" to get people to believe in a new religion. Plus, the words of Paul are both self-contradictory in terms of the Hebrew Law, somewhat vague as well as misogynistic, and also completely incompatible with Mathew's Gospel, or at least the Sermon on the Mount. (I should mention that I have also read: Exodus, a lot of Genesis, Psalms and Proverbs, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and a lot of Chronicles and Kings.)

I need rational help. I want to believe. I'm uncomfortable not believing. But I just want something to alleviate my doubts. I try to be harsh to get a response (though I believe in the points I make, until I get some actual refutations as to their truth rather than, "you weren't there and don't know"). I just want some rational reason to believe again.


Why do you as a 'theistic evolutionist' put Moses and (more importantly) Jesus in the back of the bus as far as credibility about God's creation yet you give modern neo-Darwinians full credibility?

Secondly, have you read what Jesus said about his own creation (Mark 10:6 for starters)? and do you realize that all of the dozens of statements made by the N.T. authors treated the creation (& the flood of Noah) as historical fact?

#135 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 08 September 2011 - 06:25 PM

The apostle Paul : all scripture is inspired. II Tim. 3:16

The apostle Peter: no scripture is of any private interpretation. II Peter 1:20

The apostle Peter: the word of God stands forever. I Peter 1:25

The Lord Jesus Christ: the scripture cannot be broken. John 10:35

Falconjudge: "As I read my study Bible, things kept cropping up in my mind. Inconsistencies, contradictions, fallacies, dating and translation issues."

Young fellow, have you ever been born again? If so....to what?

#136 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 September 2011 - 03:59 AM

And if I act like an atheist, I want you to know, not speaking like a Christian =/= speaking like an atheist. There are other beliefs in the world other than yours, despite the fact that you don't consider those "ordained".

So, let’s look at this for a moment… You come to a Christian forum, and complain about opposition to your atheistic slant to your claimed world view (THEISTIC evolutionist)? What are you missing here? Further, where in this atheistic worldview does the word “ordained” apply? You do see your problem here, do you not?


As for the vision thing, I say that because I'm going off the Old Testament only.

Then you are mistakenly limiting yourself by only getting half the story. Further, the dreams are only a small fraction of the communicative interaction between God and man in the Old Testament as well. For example, can you show me where the conversations between Moses and God were in a dream state, OR, rather were they while Moses was awake… Can you show me where the conversations between Noah and God were in a dream state, OR, rather were they while Noah was awake… Can you show me where the conversations between David and God were in a dream state, OR, rather were they while David was awake… (etc…)You really need to do a little better research into your source material and not totally rely on the opinions of post-modernists.

I've read the New Testament through twice, and I usually leave it out because the Gospels were written 30 years after the fact, and seem to be "tracts" to get people to believe in a new religion.

First - Once again, I’m going to hold you to your own standard… “Were you there” to look at the facts to come up with that line of reasoning? Or are you simply adopting the historical revisionist post-modern and presupposed “a priori” opinion on these subjects? In other words; where are your FACTS to back up your assertions? Do you have contemporaneous evidence to substantiate your assertions, or are you merely guessing based upon your opinions, and that of others, who have no real evidence as well?

You attempt to persuade us in your signature that you are “looking for a reason to believe the Bible as truth. My faith is slipping; I really need some help.” But you do just the opposite in every post. You do realize this, do you not?

Second – What logical facts/evidence do you have that leads one to believe the date of the Gospels negate the facts within those Gospels? Does this mean that absolutely NO biographies and autobiographies ever written can contain facts? Does this really mean that you can simply negate the eye witness testimony because you don’t like the date they were written? DID the Gospels really need to be written the next day, or can we consider that the Apostles had quite a bit of work to do before they could actually sit down, and set down the record of those testimonies they’d been telling about, over and over, up until they actually wrote them down, AND afterward (until their deaths…). I could go on and on, but I submit (objectively, and based solely upon your own statements here) that contrary to ALL the evidences of the Eye-Witness testimony in the New and Old Testaments, that you simply don’t like it, and therefore cannot reconcile them to your worldview. Now, you can negate my points and argumentation by submitting some actual facts to substantiate your assertions, and not simply posit more mere opinion.

Third – Many scholars give much earlier dates for the Gospels, and we could also discuss the dates of the books by Paul, James, Jude, Peter (etc…)



Plus, the words of Paul are both self-contradictory in terms of the Hebrew Law, somewhat vague as well as misogynistic, and also completely incompatible with Mathew's Gospel, or at least the Sermon on the Mount. (I should mention that I have also read: Exodus, a lot of Genesis, Psalms and Proverbs, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and a lot of Chronicles and Kings.)

Once again, provide the facts, not more mere opinion by post-modern historical revisionists! What “words of Paul” are “self-contradictory in terms of the Hebrew Law” and “vague”? And what are you considering “misogynistic” (how is what you are considering misogynistic, not in line with the rest of the Old and New Testament AND the rest of the world at that time?) etc…

Just because you claim to have “read” portions of the Bible, in no way shows that you have any understanding of said readings. Further, your words posted here provide contrary evidence to your claims of actually wanting to “learn”. What your words actually provide, is evidence of your “claiming” to have read the Bible objectively, but rather are copying and pasting arguments from the standard atheistic rule book for arguing against Christianity. You even use standard phraseology from atheistic web sites; which causes those of us who have been doing this for a long time, to see through the thinly veiled innuendoes.

Now, you can prove me wrong by either providing the facts to back up your assertions, OR actually be willing to learn (like your signature claims).


I need rational help. I want to believe. I'm uncomfortable not believing. But I just want something to alleviate my doubts. I try to be harsh to get a response (though I believe in the points I make, until I get some actual refutations as to their truth rather than, "you weren't there and don't know"). I just want some rational reason to believe again.


First - Your words don’t reflect your actions.
Second – You are believing in your points via “blind faith” because you have yet to provide facts to support your statements.
Third – Being “harsh” with no “facts” quickly deflates your credibility.
Conclusion – Unless you can provide facts to substantiate your assertions, OR actually be objective in your world-view, you will have a hard time convincing anyone that you “just want some rational reason to believe again”…

#137 Falconjudge

Falconjudge

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Montana

Posted 09 September 2011 - 07:04 AM

... So essentially, you would refuse to believe any facts I post claiming that they come from "post-modern revisionists", yet you still ask for them. You stolidly refuse to back up your own arguments, but you demand evidence for mine. You have no concept of sarcasm or the idea that someone can believe differently from you and not be an atheist.

You seem to confuse "seeking the truth", and "seeking a reason", with "believing the Bible blindly."

Also, this will probably be my last post, as I'm probably getting banned for being an insult-slinging ass. I'm never good at controlling my emotions in debates... You should have seen me in High School, debating against abortion. I think I made one of the girls in the room cry (emotional appeals against travesty do work, even if they aren't encouraged).

#138 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Pretending he used to be a science teacher
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 09 September 2011 - 08:05 AM

... So essentially, you would refuse to believe any facts I post claiming that they come from "post-modern revisionists", yet you still ask for them. You stolidly refuse to back up your own arguments, but you demand evidence for mine. You have no concept of sarcasm or the idea that someone can believe differently from you and not be an atheist.

You seem to confuse "seeking the truth", and "seeking a reason", with "believing the Bible blindly."

Also, this will probably be my last post, as I'm probably getting banned for being an insult-slinging ass. I'm never good at controlling my emotions in debates... You should have seen me in High School, debating against abortion. I think I made one of the girls in the room cry (emotional appeals against travesty do work, even if they aren't encouraged).


To whom are you talking to?

Nonetheless, it is your interpretation of the facts that we reject. Ron is backing up his arguments but you are unwilling to consider them beyond what you blindly accepted in the neo-Darwinian explanation of things.

So I will approach you again with the same question:

Quote: "The apostle Paul : all scripture is inspired. II Tim. 3:16

The apostle Peter: no scripture is of any private interpretation. II Peter 1:20

The apostle Peter: the word of God stands forever. I Peter 1:25

The Lord Jesus Christ: the scripture cannot be broken. John 10:35

Falconjudge: 'As I read my study Bible, things kept cropping up in my mind. Inconsistencies, contradictions, fallacies, dating and translation issues.'

Young fellow, have you ever been born again? If so....to what?"

#139 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 September 2011 - 06:52 PM

... So essentially, you would refuse to believe any facts I post claiming that they come from "post-modern revisionists", yet you still ask for them.

You have yet to provide any facts. You have only posited your opinions (or that which you’ve gotten from others?). I’ve even provided you the opportunity to show your facts by asking for your evidence for specific statements up front. For example, you said “the words of Paul are both self-contradictory in terms of the Hebrew Law, somewhat vague as well as misogynistic”. And I gave you the opportunity to provide your facts, when I said “What “words of Paul” are “self-contradictory in terms of the Hebrew Law” and “vague”? And what are you considering “misogynistic” (how is what you are considering misogynistic, not in line with the rest of the Old and New Testament AND the rest of the world at that time?) etc…”. But, once again, you’ve failed to provide any foundation for your assertions. You simply claim that I “would refuse to believe any facts”.

You stolidly refuse to back up your own arguments, but you demand evidence for mine.

As I provided earlier, I stand firmly on the eyewitness testimony for the historical Christ until there is any factual evidence to the contrary. Therefore, until you have finally provided other than opinion based presuppositions, you have done nothing to change those historical facts. So, do you have contrary contemporaneous evidence, or are you going to stand on the post modernists presuppositions still?

Yes, I still demand of you, your facts to substantiate your assertions.

You have no concept of sarcasm or the idea that someone can believe differently from you and not be an atheist.

When you give standard atheistic answers, what would you expect? Further, I have absolutely no problem with your disagreeing with me, but I do call on you to provide the FACTS to support your ASSERTIONS. And, of course, you have yet to provide them.

And, as far as attempting to play the “sarcasm” card… Really??? Did you actually expect that dodge to work?

You seem to confuse "seeking the truth", and "seeking a reason", with "believing the Bible blindly."

Provide where I have “blindly believed the Bible”… This should be interesting…

Also, this will probably be my last post, as I'm probably getting banned for being an insult-slinging ass.


Are you kidding? Right now you are providing continual examples of what is wrong with your argumentation. Besides, you are fully aware that you have no regard for the rules of the forum, and therefore will have no leg to stand on when you do get removed.

#140 Balticon

Balticon

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Bristol, UK

Posted 11 October 2011 - 01:08 PM

Since I joined the forum to come and demand answers of you I thought it would only be polite to answer some of your questions. :)

Things that would make me consider creationism (in no particular order):

A personal experience of a God where he/she revealed his/her part in creation to me.
Unequivocal evidence of a God's existence - clouds parting, God appearing in sky type stuff.
Witnessing a true miracle that I had no way of rationalising(this one is less sure, would depend on what I actually saw).
And of course the most contentious one, some strong scientific evidence for it. The kind kind published in reputable, secular Journals and peer reviewed. I'm sure some of you believe this evidence exists and I would love to see some papers on the subject, so links are welcome.

I'm sure there are others, these are just the first that come to mind.

I know it isn't the question, but I think it is implicit given the nature of this forum; there are also plenty of things that would cause me to reject evolution. However rejecting evolution would not automatically cause me to seriously consider creationism. That would still require evidence of the kind outlined above. There are thousands of ways to falsify evolution. Off the top of my head: organisms with a different genetic code, organisms out of sequence in the fossil record, spontaneous generation of organisms, etc etc. Again I'm sure some of you believe these falsifications exist, and again I would love to see the papers.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users