Jump to content


Photo

Backtracking Again?


  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#161 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 11 September 2017 - 05:04 PM

He won't accept it Gneiss Girl. IndyDave spent forever and a day showing him good evidence that breaks the so called, "evolution pattern". He repeats the same thing every time; contamination of some sort. Then when it has quieted down he will come back and request his Cambrian bunny all over again as though he wasn't shown the evidence.

 

(Wibble: :P

 

:D

They'll always find an excuse, why their paradigm is still correct, while there is something wrong with the evidence itself. 

 

Of course having constructed a body of knowledge and explanation that is congruent with that paradigm, helps to sustain it as well. After all it's what is expected from you, if you want to have a career in paleontology. 



#162 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 11 September 2017 - 06:34 PM

NO.. I AM SAYING HE IS AN IRRATIONAL FOOL WHO MAKES IPSE DIXIT CLAIMS BASED IN HIS IGNORANT A PRIORI WORLDVIEW OF METAPHYSICAL NATURALISM..

but blitz, he acknowledges special creation may be true.he also appears to be unbiased concerning the matter

Not at all.. He is FAR FROM "Unbiased" He makes the Ipse Dixit claim that it is irrational to believe in special creation when it is just the opposite.. It is RATIONAL to believe in Creationism and It is IRRATIONAL to believe in Metaphysical Naturalism. It is IRRATIONAL to try to break several scientific laws just so one can convince themselves that they are a meaningless accidental ape that evolved from nothing for no reason.. Here, read it again. I hope can finally realize that what I am saying about him is true..

He said..


"The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational." (Dr. Louis T. More,)


It would be MUCH MORE Rational and unbiased to say the following..


"The only alternative is the doctrine of evolution, which may be true, but irrational." (Dr. Louis T. More,)


I hope this clears up your apparent confusion on this matter.. Have a nice day.


"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it."

(H.S. Lipson, Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin 31

#163 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 11 September 2017 - 07:19 PM

 

He won't accept it Gneiss Girl. IndyDave spent forever and a day showing him good evidence that breaks the so called, "evolution pattern". He repeats the same thing every time; contamination of some sort. Then when it has quieted down he will come back and request his Cambrian bunny all over again as though he wasn't shown the evidence.

 

(Wibble: :P

 

:D

They'll always find an excuse, why their paradigm is still correct, while there is something wrong with the evidence itself. 

 

Of course having constructed a body of knowledge and explanation that is congruent with that paradigm, helps to sustain it as well. After all it's what is expected from you, if you want to have a career in paleontology. 

 

 

Believe me. I don't talk about this with my colleagues. Expressing serious doubts about evolutionary theory is not good for the career. 



#164 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 11 September 2017 - 07:53 PM

 

 

He won't accept it Gneiss Girl. IndyDave spent forever and a day showing him good evidence that breaks the so called, "evolution pattern". He repeats the same thing every time; contamination of some sort. Then when it has quieted down he will come back and request his Cambrian bunny all over again as though he wasn't shown the evidence.

 

(Wibble: :P

 

:D

They'll always find an excuse, why their paradigm is still correct, while there is something wrong with the evidence itself. 

 

Of course having constructed a body of knowledge and explanation that is congruent with that paradigm, helps to sustain it as well. After all it's what is expected from you, if you want to have a career in paleontology. 

 

 

Believe me. I don't talk about this with my colleagues. Expressing serious doubts about evolutionary theory is not good for the career. 

 

 

We really do live during a time of intellectual and academic Fascism... There can be ZERO doubt about that.

 

 

Evolution is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it." (Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture,"

 

 

Darwinism_See%2BNo.jpg



#165 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 11 September 2017 - 08:35 PM

Believe me. I don't talk about this with my colleagues. Expressing serious doubts about evolutionary theory is not good for the career.

i bet a very large fraction has "doubts about evolutionary theory".
and like you, they don't express them for fear of being labeled as a creationist or an evolution denier.
i have no idea why this is, because this is the ONLY WAY that science can revise what we know.
the only thing i can figure is, there is big bucks involved.

the only thing i can say is, the modern synthesis is dead.
all of its tenets has either been overturned or rewritten.

there is zero evidence that natural selection encourages complexity.
there is no evidence that animal phyla descended from one another.
meloni states that the gene has been redefined, which makes such analysis such as population genetics worthless.

i can't speak for evolution proper, but we can definitely throw the modern synthesis out the window.
the gradual accumulation of genetic material is the biggest lie i ever heard.

now for the irrational:
it certainly appears as if someone, or something, was "tinkering around" with the earliest stages of life, apparently trying to get it right.
for example:
how did we go from prokaryotes that employ HGT, to eukaryotes that employ "tagged transposons"?
doesn't anyone realize what the significance of this is?

i've seen NOTHING from the scientific community that explains how epigenetics "gradually accumulated".

how on earth can you explain the sudden radial arrival of animal phyla by "gradual accumulation"?

#166 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 11 September 2017 - 10:47 PM

 

Believe me. I don't talk about this with my colleagues. Expressing serious doubts about evolutionary theory is not good for the career.

i bet a very large fraction has "doubts about evolutionary theory".
and like you, they don't express them for fear of being labeled as a creationist or an evolution denier.
i have no idea why this is, because this is the ONLY WAY that science can revise what we know.
the only thing i can figure is, there is big bucks involved.

the only thing i can say is, the modern synthesis is dead.
all of its tenets has either been overturned or rewritten.

there is zero evidence that natural selection encourages complexity.
there is no evidence that animal phyla descended from one another.
meloni states that the gene has been redefined, which makes such analysis such as population genetics worthless.

i can't speak for evolution proper, but we can definitely throw the modern synthesis out the window.
the gradual accumulation of genetic material is the biggest lie i ever heard.

now for the irrational:
it certainly appears as if someone, or something, was "tinkering around" with the earliest stages of life, apparently trying to get it right.
for example:
how did we go from prokaryotes that employ HGT, to eukaryotes that employ "tagged transposons"?
doesn't anyone realize what the significance of this is?

i've seen NOTHING from the scientific community that explains how epigenetics "gradually accumulated".

how on earth can you explain the sudden radial arrival of animal phyla by "gradual accumulation"?

 

 

i have no idea why this is, because this is the ONLY WAY that science can revise what we know.
the only thing i can figure is, there is big bucks involved.

 

"i have no idea why this is,"

 

We know very well why this is, and it has little to do with money...

 

 

Here are some of the main reasons.. They are almost always philosophical in nature..

 

The Bible predicted it nearly 2000 years ago 

 

 

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires,

they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Timothy 4 : 3.4

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

Richard Dawkins

 

Evolution is a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion.  This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Michael Ruse.

 

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it." (H.S. Lipson, Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin 31

 

"Darwinism has become our culture's official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia."

(Nancy Pearcey, "Creation Mythology,"pg. 23)

 

"I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our S@xual mores."

(Sir Julian Huxley, President of the United Nation's Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO).)

 

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors. Clearly, the appeal cannot be that of a scientific truth but of a philosophical belief which is not difficult to identify. Darwinism is a belief in the meaninglessness of existence." (Dr. R. Kirk, "The Rediscovery of Creation," in National Review,

 

"If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such cases all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile" (Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" 1924)

 

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, Chap. vi)

 

 

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

 

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.

 

 

public-ed.jpg



#167 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 12 September 2017 - 01:26 AM

 

what if
 

i haven't seen anything that convinces me that the god of the bible exists.
i've seen nothing i can put my finger on and say "that convinces me".

For the answer to this question, science isn't really capable of providing the answer. One's own human lines of reasoning alone isn't going to get it either.  :rolleyes:

 

good point, if it's beyond our comprehension then . . . what?
in my opinion, by all rights there shouldn't be ANYTHING that exists, no space, time, planets, space dust, cosmic radiation, nothing.
my biggest problem with the god concept is why.
why does god do all of this?
don't bother explaining, i've already heard it, and i find it untenable.
i absolutely refuse to believe the "believe in me or die" crap.
god isn't into ego massages.

 

 

 

"i absolutely refuse to believe the "believe in me or die" crap."

 

 

I would say "Have a relationship with me in spirit and in truth"

 

OR

 

Reject me and I wont force you to come and live with me forever

as forced love is meaningless love.. your choice!

 

"God isn't into ego massages."

 

Why not? If I was the Creator of the universe I probably would be..

 

Along with recognition, adoration, love, gratefulness, awe, and devotion...

 

How can ANYONE assert to us that Such Majestic Beauty is just Mindless

Random chance AS WELL AS our eyes that are able behold it ??  :kaffeetrinker: 

 

One has to be willingly blind to believe such a thing.. 

 

 

Fall-wine-cellar-lake-trees_-_West_Virgi



#168 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 12 September 2017 - 03:16 AM

"God isn't into ego massages."
 
Why not? If I was the Creator of the universe I probably would be..
 
Along with recognition, adoration, love, gratefulness, awe, and devotion...
 
How can ANYONE assert to us that Such Majestic Beauty is just Mindless
Random chance AS WELL AS our eyes that are able behold it ??  :kaffeetrinker:
 
One has to be willingly blind to believe such a thing..


All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

Amen

(Monty Python)
  • Jambobskiwobski likes this

#169 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 September 2017 - 07:02 AM

 

 

Wibble: All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

 

 

Of course, logically, He didn't make a lot of those things, according to the bible. Or not with the connotations the poem implies.

 

For example do you think God made mad-cow-disease? No, it only originate fairly recently. In the same way, cancer, diseases, parasites, etc, were originally not part of the original creation.

 

It's even been proven that defects and disease originate not at the beginning, but in time, they have their origin when something goes wrong. Sometimes for example, things that look like they could only ever have been made to be carnivores, aren't;

 

 

 

The very idea of a ‘vegetarian vulture’ using its sharp beak to tear/cut the husks of nuts (rather than to tear meat) would probably surprise most people.3 However, the palm nut vulture is apparently well-known across many nations of central, western and southern Africa, featuring on postage stamps of Tanzania, Gabon, Angola, Gambia and Ghana

https://creation.com...-prey-thats-not

 

Finally, from a Christian's perspective, when the accusers of Christ said He was of the enemy, Jesus said that this would be a kingdom divided, for Jesus healed the sick. 

 

If it is God's will to heal the sick, and Jesus healed the sick then it would be a contradiction for Jesus to heal the sick, if God's will was that people be diseased and sick.

 

So then the Christian explanation is that these things were not designed by God to be ugly, foul or dangerous to people, but that by random chance they have happened because of what we refer to as, "the curse" when mankind was cast out of Eden and the world went downhill, especially post-flood.

 

Conclusion: It may seem like smart sarcasm, but a poem like that is predicated on ignorance of the biblical history. It's also based on ignorance of what God specifically created, at the time of creation for example, there would have most likely been symbiotic relationships for organisms that now are parasites to humans, but because they have lost their host in a world of extinction, quite by accident, they naturally accept human hosts. But logically that does not mean God invented them to have a human host, nor does it mean that was God's original intention for those organisms. 

 

When mankind said "we'll do it our way", if doing it APART from God, worked, what message would that send? It would be like God was sending this message; "it's fine to sin, it's fine to ignore my advice, just do what you want and nothing will go wrong and there will be no consequences to running the planet your own way and just living it up and feeding every whim and desire you have, and everything will be fine."

 

Conclusion 2; It would make no sense whatsoever if this world was paradisical given what God has said in the bible. Indeed the whole bible is about sin and man's failure to obey God, and He warns mankind hundreds and hudnreds of times that the penalty for sin is death. Only through faith in Christ do we receive the Kingdom, under the new covenant, when God will restore creation, but this cannot happen in a Godless world. A world based on mankind will perish...for, "the world and it's desires are passing away,(temporary system) but he that does the will of God shall abide forever.(eternally perfect creation like in Eden)." 

 

As terrible as things have become Christ predicted it would get worse until the very last moments before God's kingdom. The world's fait is downhill, as you go back in time you would have had less disease, less defects, less animals acting ferociously, etc.....so you can't base a wrecked, modern world on how it was in the beginning which was, a "very good" creation. That would be like buying a 25 year old ferrari in a right state then saying, "these cars are designed poorly, look at how knackered the engine is."

 

The fools that wrote the poem have no wisdom.



#170 Jambobskiwobski

Jambobskiwobski

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 12 September 2017 - 08:13 AM

If God is all knowing then he designed creatures knowing what they would become after the fall. What they became is therefore his responsibility. As an analogy, if I design a computer program that starts as helpful but I know it will deteriorate into a destructive virus, then I am responsible for the virus.

 

Also, the palm nut vulture is far from being a 'vegetarian vulture' as 35-42% of its adult diet consists of fish, crabs and invertebrates, through to small mammals, birds and reptiles. palmnutvulture



#171 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 September 2017 - 09:45 AM

 

 

Jambob: If God is all knowing then he designed creatures knowing what they would become after the fall. What they became is therefore his responsibility. As an analogy, if I design a computer program that starts as helpful but I know it will deteriorate into a destructive virus, then I am responsible for the virus.

 

The problem with your analogy is it doesn't involve any sentient freewill beings. God specifically commanded not to disobey Him in the garden, so it was the will of those that chose disobedience. Then the flood wrecked the world because of the wickedness of human beings, had that flood not happened there would be a lot less negative things.

 

That's why it can come off as a rather superficial argument from atheists when they blame God for a Godless, atheist system, when the bible very clearly records God telling us to obey.

 

If you foresee something and you don't stop it, as a finite human being you're morally accountable because you're held to that standard but God isn't morally accountable to anyone. The sinner that accuses God is like a man in court being accused before the judge, that speaks out of turn and the judge says he is "in contempt of court". Would you say the judge was in contempt of court if the judge then spoke out of turn and interrupted as you do? No, because you are not the judge. And we know that God "works all things together for good, to those who love Him", meaning God doesn't have any dark motive.

 

 

 

Jambob: Also, the palm nut vulture is far from being a 'vegetarian vulture' as 35-42% of its adult diet consists of fish, crabs and invertebrates, through to small mammals, birds and reptiles.

 

Yes but logically I only have to prove that the vulture can live off of veg, in order to prove that perceived carnivore traits are not necessarily those traits, and have not necessarily always been that way. If a vulture can live off a vegetarian diet then is it so impossible to imagine that in the past in fully lived off of one? This is the point - that those features don't have to be used for ugly things. But even if they are and only ever were, we now know the potential changes of the epigenetic code, that information can be switched on in organisms. I myself believe that there was a time when perhaps these features such as venom in snakes and spiders, were switched on in order so they could survive in a fallen world.

 

Now there is no immorality to a fly being eaten by a spider, and we ourselves kill animals to eat them. Please don't tell me you're going to argue that it's immoral when a spider catches a fly when you've been catching kentucky fried chicken on your way home from work most nights of the week. ;)

 

You need to ask yourself this question;

 

1. How did God want it to be?

Answer - what He created in the beginning answers that - Genesis says veggie meals were for all animals, but now the flood has destroyed most of the veg, and we live in a desert.

 

So God says "don't disobey this is a paradise" then mankind disobeys, the world becomes nasty then mankind blames God for it.

 

My answer; Lol!

 

 

For some time now scientists have known that certain spider species occasionally taste vegetable matter. Male crab spiders have been observed to sip nectar from flowers, and some baby spiders eat pollen grains that have stuck to a web.2,4 But on hearing of this latest discovery of a “vegetarian spider”, one scientist’s reaction was typical: “I was absolutely floored.”2

This is not the first time that creatures thought of today as needing to eat other creatures to survive turn out to have a diet derived largely, or even exclusively, from plants instead

https://creation.com/vegetarian-spider



#172 Jambobskiwobski

Jambobskiwobski

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 13 September 2017 - 05:51 AM

 

 

 

Jambob: If God is all knowing then he designed creatures knowing what they would become after the fall. What they became is therefore his responsibility. As an analogy, if I design a computer program that starts as helpful but I know it will deteriorate into a destructive virus, then I am responsible for the virus.

 

The problem with your analogy is it doesn't involve any sentient freewill beings. God specifically commanded not to disobey Him in the garden, so it was the will of those that chose disobedience. Then the flood wrecked the world because of the wickedness of human beings, had that flood not happened there would be a lot less negative things.

 

That's why it can come off as a rather superficial argument from atheists when they blame God for a Godless, atheist system, when the bible very clearly records God telling us to obey.

 

If you foresee something and you don't stop it, as a finite human being you're morally accountable because you're held to that standard but God isn't morally accountable to anyone. The sinner that accuses God is like a man in court being accused before the judge, that speaks out of turn and the judge says he is "in contempt of court". Would you say the judge was in contempt of court if the judge then spoke out of turn and interrupted as you do? No, because you are not the judge. And we know that God "works all things together for good, to those who love Him", meaning God doesn't have any dark motive.

 

 

 

 

God is all knowing and therefore knew that mankind would disobey him before creating the universe. All he had to do was not have the tree so why put it there unless it was with the intention that mankind would fall?

God sent the flood so it and all that followed is on him. Simply saying ‘the flood wrecked the world’ is like blaming the bomb for blowing up the building without laying any blame on the person that set the bomb to blow up the building.

God told humanity to obey already knowing full well that they wouldn’t and then blames it on humanity when he ‘has to’ send the flood. Makes perfect sense.

If I’m in court before a judge then I can expect that judge to be held to the same laws to which I am accountable. I can also expect them to be of good character and not guilty of the crimes with which I am accused.

 

 

 

 

Jambob: If God is all knowing then he designed creatures knowing what they would become after the fall. What they became is therefore his responsibility. As an analogy, if I design a computer program that starts as helpful but I know it will deteriorate into a destructive virus, then I am responsible for the virus.

 

The problem with your analogy is it doesn't involve any sentient freewill beings. God specifically commanded not to disobey Him in the garden, so it was the will of those that chose disobedience. Then the flood wrecked the world because of the wickedness of human beings, had that flood not happened there would be a lot less negative things.

 

That's why it can come off as a rather superficial argument from atheists when they blame God for a Godless, atheist system, when the bible very clearly records God telling us to obey.

 

If you foresee something and you don't stop it, as a finite human being you're morally accountable because you're held to that standard but God isn't morally accountable to anyone. The sinner that accuses God is like a man in court being accused before the judge, that speaks out of turn and the judge says he is "in contempt of court". Would you say the judge was in contempt of court if the

 

Yes but logically I only have to prove that the vulture can live off of veg, in order to prove that perceived carnivore traits are not necessarily those traits, and have not necessarily always been that way. If a vulture can live off a vegetarian diet then is it so impossible to imagine that in the past in fully lived off of one? This is the point - that those features don't have to be used for ugly things. But even if they are and only ever were, we now know the potential changes of the epigenetic code, that information can be switched on in organisms. I myself believe that there was a time when perhaps these features such as venom in snakes and spiders, were switched on in order so they could survive in a fallen world.

 

Now there is no immorality to a fly being eaten by a spider, and we ourselves kill animals to eat them. Please don't tell me you're going to argue that it's immoral when a spider catches a fly when you've been catching kentucky fried chicken on your way home from work most nights of the week. ;)

 

You need to ask yourself this question;

 

1. How did God want it to be?

Answer - what He created in the beginning answers that - Genesis says veggie meals were for all animals, but now the flood has destroyed most of the veg, and we live in a desert.

 

So God says "don't disobey this is a paradise" then mankind disobeys, the world becomes nasty then mankind blames God for it.

 

My answer; Lol!

 

 

For some time now scientists have known that certain spider species occasionally taste vegetable matter. Male crab spiders have been observed to sip nectar from flowers, and some baby spiders eat pollen grains that have stuck to a web.2,4 But on hearing of this latest discovery of a “vegetarian spider”, one scientist’s reaction was typical: “I was absolutely floored.”2

This is not the first time that creatures thought of today as needing to eat other creatures to survive turn out to have a diet derived largely, or even exclusively, from plants instead

https://creation.com/vegetarian-spider

 

 

“logically I only have to prove that the vulture can live off of veg”

But you haven’t logically proven that a vulture can live off a vegetarian diet. All you’ve shown is that the palm nut vulture eats more fruit than most vultures.

 

“I myself believe that there was a time when perhaps these features such as venom in snakes and spiders, were switched on in order so they could survive in a fallen world.”

So God did create all the horrible beasts (albeit with a time delay switch) after all and Monty Python were right.

 

“don't tell me you're going to argue that it's immoral when a spider catches a fly”

Have I even implied that a spider catching a fly is immoral? If not, why suggest I might argue it?

 

“1. How did God want it to be?

Answer - what He created in the beginning answers that - Genesis says veggie meals were for all animals, but now the flood has destroyed most of the veg, and we live in a desert.”

By ‘the flood’ you mean ‘the flood that God sent’. So God destroyed most of the veg. So presumably God wanted this end result.

 

“So God says "don't disobey this is a paradise" then mankind disobeys, the world becomes nasty then mankind blames God for it.”

That would be because it’s God’s doing. If you bomb a building then it’s your fault when the building is destroyed by the bombing.



#173 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 September 2017 - 06:15 AM

Jambob you are now putting your own particular spin on these events. The fact is, you yourself provided the parameters of the argument, that God is omniscient, but you also have to accept the other things God is, if you accept the God of the bible has certain characteristics. The bible says He is all-just, also, He punishes sin.

 

The flood wasn't a bomb that went off because someone had a motive to murder, the flood was punishment for sin. If you say, "it's wrong it's not just" don't you agree you say that as a person without omniscience? So then your request is that I believe you are smarter than God when you aren't even smarter than me? 

 

Lol

 

 

 

Jambob: God is all knowing and therefore knew that mankind would disobey him before creating the universe. All he had to do was not have the tree so why put it there unless it was with the intention that mankind would fall?

 

Not for reasons of a dark motive. A God Who dies on a cross for mankind, doesn't have dark motives.

 

Ultimately you are asking me subliminally, to accept a neurotic-agreement. You are effectively repeating what the Serpent said in the garden, you don't come out and say it but the connotation of your words imply that what you are really asking me is to agree with you that God's actions are wrong, foolish, God can be questioned, is responsible for evil, etc..

 

What did the serpent say? He said, "did God really say X would happen? No it won't!"

 

So your whole argument is predicated on me agreeing with you that only physical factors count. This is the heart of shallow morality. (liberalism) that only physical factors count, when it comes to morality. But I don't agree with that, I don't agree with liberalist subjectivism. 

 

The problem with liberalist morality is that it has it's basis in self-righteousness; "I am moral, everyone else isn't."

 

Your puny attempt at understanding omniscient motives, is exactly that, a finite and fallen mind attempting to accuse God. That is exactly what the enemy wants you to do - to blame God, to say it's all God's fault, etc....listen you can fool yourself with that foolishness if you want but I don't accept your philosophy. I believe the world is the way it is because of sin, I believe mankind wanted to be a god. The serpent's offer was exactly that - to ignore God and become gods, but what did God say? God said there would be consequences, and now you blame God for the consequences like the faithful puppet of Satan you are.

 

You're brainwashed into doing exactly what the enemy wants you to do. Like Lord Voldemort, he is laughing when you speak the exact words he wants you to speak, so you won't discover the true problem and the true solution, for God is the solution and always was, when the world was ran by God, it was paradise. The problem is your sinful nature, which is the true cause of all of the bad things, according to the bible, and spoils everything, relationships, friendship, good things, good wisdom, good choices, it's corrupting influence keeps the world as it is, while peoples hearts wax cold.



#174 Jambobskiwobski

Jambobskiwobski

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 13 September 2017 - 08:54 AM

Ah - the old 'you can't understand God' conversation killer.

 

 

"A God Who dies on a cross for mankind, doesn't have dark motives."

 

How can you draw that conclusion from that single act?



#175 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 13 September 2017 - 12:13 PM

Ah - the old 'you can't understand God' conversation killer.
 
 
"A God Who dies on a cross for mankind, doesn't have dark motives."
 
How can you draw that conclusion from that single act?



"How can you draw that conclusion from that single act?"

Single Act?

The lame walk
The blind see
The lepers healed
The mute speak
The dead rise
Establishing moral conduct.
Love thy enemies
Be good Samaritans
Turn the other cheek
Do unto others
And on and on..

Satan's Lie of Evolution was predicted perfectly nearly 2000 years ago..

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Tim 4

#176 Jambobskiwobski

Jambobskiwobski

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 14 September 2017 - 12:25 AM

 

Ah - the old 'you can't understand God' conversation killer.
 
 
"A God Who dies on a cross for mankind, doesn't have dark motives."
 
How can you draw that conclusion from that single act?



"How can you draw that conclusion from that single act?"

Single Act?

The lame walk
The blind see
The lepers healed
The mute speak
The dead rise
Establishing moral conduct.
Love thy enemies
Be good Samaritans
Turn the other cheek
Do unto others
And on and on..

Satan's Lie of Evolution was predicted perfectly nearly 2000 years ago..

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Tim 4

 

 

Mike the Wiz stated "A God Who dies on a cross for mankind, doesn't have dark motives." That means that one act of dying on the cross, not any other act(s), excludes the possibility of 'dark motives'.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users