Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Seth

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Seth last won the day on February 4 2013

Seth had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Seth

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    36
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    Christian
  • What is your Worldview?
    Creationist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Chicago
  1. This wasn't posted to "help" the Creationist view point necessarily. It was used to expose the extreme bias shown in science among evolutionists who INSIST that such findings like Archaeopteryx is "evidence" of evolution. It is NOT! The quote I posted makes it clear about the "NOTION" he had. Since when are "notions" evidence or the "basis" used to support evidence? THAT is called BIAS, which is the point being being made in this post. THAT'S part of the problem, "they TALK as though they are absolutely right...", in which time they shove it down young minds only to find later, as these articles show, that it is not so "absolute" after all. If evolutionist don't know "for sure" then they should TALK as though they are not sure. However, as YOU candidly (whether unwittingly or not) say, they "talk as though they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT." Guess what, they're not.
  2. Seth

    The Kingdom Of Heaven - Lk.17:21

    What is the body of Christ? Is it not the Church? Church is not a "building", it is an assembly or believers. And who did Jesus say He will build HIS Church on? Matthew 16:18 Peter NOT Paul. So says your Bible. Gospel of Uncircumcision OR Grace? Are you saying there are TWO Gospels or that these are one and the same? Gal.2:7-9 Speaks of the commission by God given to Peter and Paul. Peter to the house of Israel, Paul to the Gentiles, BOTH preaching the SAME Gospel. You may be confusing Peter's EMPHASIS verses Paul's. Peter's main concern was toward the house of Israel and he later learned that Jesus was taking the Gospel to the Gentiles as well. Nevertheless Peter's commission did not change that was Paul's calling. Paul's focus was primarily toward the Gentile nations. This is what Gal.2:7-9 speaks of. It’s no different than many ministries today who “emphasize” certain areas of the gospel. Some focus on the Provision, some on Healing, some on Prophecy, some on the Kingdom, some on Grace, etc. Yet these ministries are not speaking a “different” gospel. They are emphasizing the Good News of some of the benefits received from that SAME gospel. TeeJay, your Bible says that Jesus does not know. Mark 13:32, Acts 1:7. The Father has put in His OWN authority, not under Jesus authority. Saying "this did not mean that Jesus did not know" is speculation on your part, unless you have some verse to support that. Saying the Father did not know is more speculation since Mark 13:32 says He does. You say this because "the decision was future"? What of Isaiah 45:9-10? What about Romans 4:17? What is the future to God? You insinuate that God may have been “surprised” by all of Israel’s refusal to accept Christ? Is there any verse in the Bible that may lend itself to support that notion? The Bible also says Jesus IS our King and refers to Him as such NOW. 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:15, John 18:37 (You quoted John earlier). Jesus says for this CAUSE I was BORN. Notice the verse before, verse 36. Jesus says My Kingdom IS not of this world. If Jesus is not King then why say “MY” Kingdom? Who’s kingdom is it, if not Jesus? Where do you get the idea that Jesus return is “contingent” on Israel, as a nation, accepting their risen Messiah? Is there a verse that can support that? I’ll talk about that last. Now let's go back to the following verse I gave in Matt. 16:18 , verse 19. Not only does Jesus tell Peter on this rock I will build MY CHURCH but Jesus adds, "And I will give you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven…” within the context of building his Church. The body of Christ has the keys to the Kingdom and if you have the keys to anything that means you have “Access” to what it is you have the keys for. What good are giving keys to something we can’t have access to now WITH the keys that were given? What is the point, then, of even having the keys? The Church of God and the Kingdom of God may not be the “same” thing (technically speaking) but they are BOTH part of the believer’s provision through Christ. You can’t enter the Church without Christ and therefore you most certainly cannot receive the Keys to the Kingdom without Christ and/or without the Church (that you entered THROUGH Christ). You want access to the Brady Bunch’s car, tv, swing set, etc.? Well you first have to be a part of their family (the Church) THEN you receive the Keys to their house and all that they have (the Kingdom). Jesus is talking about having access to the Kingdom now here on earth, which is why He continues in the verse to say, “and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Those keys are “IN” you by the Holy Spirit. Every believer receives those keys when they enter the Church. Most don’t know how to use them or even that they have them. I hope this makes sense to you. Now we come to Matthew 24:34, which I believe is something entirely different than what we’ve discussed above. Again, we need to go to the “Context” of this passage, as you rightly mention. Context is important. This verse has brought up a lot of controversy. I don’t understand why if we allow the Bible to interpret the Bible, that’s not to say there aren’t verses that many of us just don’t have a revelation about. Anyways. In the beginning of the chapter the disciples “came up to show Him (Jesus) the buildings of the temple.” Jesus then explains in verse 2 what will happen to “these things” (the buildings) since He continues by saying “not one STONE shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” So this is how the conversation starts. Later the disciples ask Jesus “3” questions. 1. When will these “things” be? 2. What will be the sign of Your coming? 3. And the end of the age? (which is part of question 2) Jesus goes on to explain to them. Then in verse 32 Jesus gives them a parable, which is basically reiterating what He just answered but in parable form. Guys it’s like this, when you see the branches of a fig tree becoming tender and puts out leaves you know that Summer is near. (Guys when you see flowers budding up and the temperature rising you know Spring is near. Etc.) My own version.  He is simply telling them that in the same way when you see the signs on a fig tree you know Summer is getting near, in that same way you’ll know. I'm just highlighting the point by repeating it, I'm not assuming that you do or don't understand that. Then in verse 33 notice Jesus says, “SO”. In other words, In Conclusion to what I’ve (Jesus) already said, “ you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near-at the doors! I believe that was the conclusion. Then Jesus answers those same 3 questions again in verses 34, 35-50. Verse 34 answers the first question, When will these “things” be, which is why Jesus says that THIS generation will see these “things” (the temple building being destroyed) taking place. The question is what did Jesus mean by “this generation”? Most likely it means this society. Look at Luke 11:29. Now was it only THAT generation that was evil while the ones before it were not? Obviously not. In verse 32 Jesus says that the sons of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with THIS generation and condemn it… (a repentant Generation verses an unrepentant one) Read verses 30-31. The point is when Jesus uses that term generation we can’t assume He means a specific 20 year generation. In fact, you can find in the Bible where generation is also being referred to as 40 years Heb 3:11 referring to the Israelites who wandered the wilderness for 40 years. In either case it can’t possibly refer to end time events occurring within the Apostles lifetime (even though the Apostles thought it might, you can see that in Acts 1:6). Why not? I have several other reasons but I’ll just mention a couple. In verse 22 of Chapter 24 in Matthew. “And unless those days were shortened, NO FLESH would be saved; but for the elects sake those days will be shortened.” Now this is speculation on my part but when was there a time when NO flesh could survive tribulation like the one Jesus described? I’d say during the Nuclear age, now. That possibility is now a reality. Was it ever a reality during Jesus time or the following 70 years after His resurrection? But that aside Jesus says something interesting in verse 15. He refers to the book of Daniel. THIS is what you must consider when studying this subject, look to the book of Daniel. The return of Christ is contingent upon these prophecies being fulfilled. There is a reason they were prophesied. You say the prophesy was intended to occur during the Apostles life time but unless you can provide some verses to show this, then you are merely giving speculation and we both know that no prophecy of Scripture is of any PRIVATE interpretation, 1 Peter 1:20 (emphasis mine). I think I’ve written more than enough here.
  3. Seth

    The Kingdom Of Heaven - Lk.17:21

    I believe I may be able to help you with your question. Let me first start with Romans 14:17 (NKJ) for the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. (Emphasis mine) The Holy Spirit dwells in the believer (Romans 8:11). When Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is in your midst He could be referring to HIMSELF however I believe it's more likely that He means the kingdom is IN us. For one reason He says the kingdom does not come by OBSERVATION Luke 17:20. In comes by faith in the unseen. As a believer Jesus dwells inside of us through the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 3:20 Speaks about the power at work WITHIN us. The Kingdom of God is a System. A heavenly system that supersedes the earth cursed system. And that system involves seed time and harvest. Seed of God's Word, into the soil of our hearts to be manifested on earth when we release our faith for it with our words. It's a way of operating. As believers we have been transferred into this Kingdom. Colossians 1:13 Unfortunately many Christians are not aware of how the Kingdom operates and of the inheritence in Christ that we have NOW. We don't have to wait for Jesus to return and establish His Kingdom here on earth, we can operate in it NOW as co heirs with Christ. Remember what Jesus tells us in Luke 12:32, "Do not fear, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." He's not talking about receiving the kingdom in "heaven" or in the "future" because we'd have nothing to fear in heaven or in the future when Jesus returns, Jesus is talking about now. I think there is a misunderstanding between the Kingdom when it is established in it's fullness at the return of Christ to the same Kingdom that we as believer's can take full advantage of now. It's the same kingdom, the only difference is that it has yet to be established here on earth. It would appear to me Teejay that you are seeing TWO Kingdoms when the truth is, there is only ONE. Jesus is King of that kingdom NOW as you pointed out in John 18:37, not just in the future and as believers, co heirs with Him, Jesus says to seek first that kingdom. You see the world does not recognize Him as King the way we as believers do NOW and as we all know, the world WILL know Him and recognize Him as King, whether they want to or not, when He returns to establish it on earth. But that kingdom is the SAME Kingdom. All of Israel will return to their home land at that time but that has no bearing on how as believers we can live in that kingdom, which is IN us by the Holy Spirit, now. I hope that makes some sense for you.
  4. Well it looks like the great and mighty Archaeopteryx has fallen a great fall according to these articles and many more that have recently emerged. http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0728/Archaeopteryx-may-not-have-been-a-bird-but-just-a-feathery-dinosaur http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/science/02fossil.html (I included this article from talkorigins. I expect they will have to "revise" their story now. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html) What will the evolutionists do? I thought this quote was telling, Since “virtually all our notions about early avian evolution have previously been viewed through the lens of Archaeopteryx,” (You mean they based their research on an ASSUMPTION a NOTION?) Emphasis mine. Dr. Witmer said, “the impact of losing Archaeopteryx from the avian clan is likely to rock the paleontological community for years to come.” Will this recent discovery make it's way into our Science textbooks for students? Or will it still be taught as "strong" evidence of a "transitional" fossil between birdlike creatures and dinosaurs, or was it the other way around (Kind of like embryos with "gills" are still in textbooks)? I Can never remember the "story" of whether it was a transitional from bird to dino or dino to bird (Not that it really mattered since it was all fairytale stuff anyways). I've heard both. Anyways, just a bit of news.
  5. My apologies. I see Ikester was the one who posted the question. Nevertheless my answer is the same. Consider Creation!
  6. So basically the fact that our brains or a certain area of our brains is larger is the reason we have a mind and apes, gorrilla's don't? (This idea has been a part of evolution for years now and I'm surprised to see it repeated here.) I'm surprised because if you follow that idea to it's "logical" conclusion, then we'd have to expect to find the brain of a "genius" vs the average person to be either larger or a certain area of their brain larger. However that is NOT the case. Under that same idea you'd have to "logically" conclude the blue whale is much smarter than humans. But again, that is NOT the case. However you BELIEVE this. It's FAITH in YOUR worldview. It seems to me, you've already made up your "MIND". Your question was, "What would it take for a(n) evolutionist to CONSIDER creation?" (emphasis mine). Here's my answer. Consider It! Otherwise, as Teejay pointed out, you'll always just filter anything a Creationist tells you through your worldview. We're asking you questions not in an effort to "win" an argument. But to pose some things that you may or may not have "considered" about YOUR worldview versus ours. None of us can or ever will "Force" anyone to take what is said into consideration, that is entirely up to you.
  7. Well you just answered the first question again with some added detail. "Seeing" and making a "distinction" between the larger verses the smaller is not what Teejay is talking about. Nor does it answer the second question, which I will answer to help you in your ponderings. . He's referring to our "Minds". Where does that come from? Dog's don't know that 2 marbles next to 3 marbles make 5 marbles because they don't have the mind to "process", or as you say, "perform a computation upon it". Animals have "memory", which helps a lot when they need to know where to get their food source from and other things. Which brings up another good question, since I mentioned it, where did "memory" come from? Also, since you mentioned it, animals may, as you gave the example, have the ability to make distinctions. But even there I have to ask. Where did that ability to make such a distinction come from? What we're basically asking is, how does a materialistic worldview explain the mind or even memory or the ability to make a distinction? More specifically, how do chemicals and molecules via a random process produce such a thing? So, from a materialistic worldview, where did this ability to reason, compute, express logic, remember, morality, etc. come from? The Bible says, there is a Spirit in man. It also says that animals have a spirit. (Ecclesiastes 3:21)
  8. Just chiming in. Here's a real simple question to ponder. I'll give the answer to the first and let you ponder the second one. Does a dog know that 2 marbles placed next to 3 marbles makes 5 marbles? No. Here's my question. Why not?
  9. Teejay, your response to your grandson, "My grandson beleived it (got it from an atheist professor in college). When he told me that "there is no turth," I asked him, "Is that true?" He stared at me like a deer in the headlights.", made me smile and chuckle, by the way. I wasn't trying to "correct" you. I always oblige using the term "worldview" when talking about Atheism and Theism in debate my self. I was just saying that "technically" the believer's "worldview" actually stems from the reality of the life we all live therefore can we really call it a "worldview", since calling it a "worldview" gives the insinuation that there are other's when in reality there is only one. It's the atheist who seems to take those lifelong experiences, stemming from the same reality we all live in, for granted. Who also seems to think or believe, for whatever reason, that it can't "possibly" apply to living creatures and nature. As Creationists we're simply looking at our real life experiences and making the OBVIOUS conclusion. What "other" reality has anyone ever experienced where complex, design, created itself and by "accident"? NONE so It's ABSURD to think otherwise!!! However, that being said, if such an example does exist, well then, I don't know of any Creationist who'd be apposed to seeing it. However examples are never provided only their own "personal" reasoning. Just like the professor who "reasoned" that "there is no truth" not realizing that his/her own statement undermines itself. Unfortunately many of our young minds with little experience fall victim to these "persuasive" sounding words. Like Satan with Eve. "Has God said you cannot eat of any tree in the garden?", "Of every tree we may freely eat but the tree in the midst of the garden we may not eat lest we die." Now here comes the "persuasive reasoning" but first the contradiction to God. " You will 'not' die, for God knows that when you eat of it you will know good and evil." Eve fell victim to Satans word because she gave up on God's Word and gave up her advantage. That advantage is THE TRUTH! As believers we should NEVER give up and abandon our advantage. The truth in the experiences of the reality we live in and the truth of God's Word. The reality we live in points to God and nowhere else! If atheists believe otherwise we'd love to hear it.
  10. The Theistic worldview is not only the "most" rational, it's the ONLY rational worldview! Notice the very first thing God tells people. In the beginning GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth. That is VERY significant. At first glance most of us miss it. When you understand that God's wisdom is beyond any human reckoning you come to a place where you begin to pay very extra careful attention to what He says and why He said it and when. I've already typed what He said, now let's look at the "why" and "when" of it. This goes back to EVERY HUMAN BEINGS experience in REALITY! All our life we've seen nature around us alive, including our very selves and the families we were born in. We've all experienced our parents "MAKING" our food. Maybe cutting wood and "MAKING" a fire. We began to wear clothes that someone "MADE". Yes these are VERY BASIC experiences in reality but they are realities of life nonetheless. It's not a worldview, it's REAL! It's TRUTH! Knowing that I exist is NOT a worldview, it's REAL! It's the TRUTH! Knowing that it took a PERSON to make your food and prepare it is an experience in REALITY. That's NOT a worldview. Knowing that the clothes your parents put on you took a PERSON to make it is an experience in REALITY. In other words we experience almost daily the activity of things being made. We may not "see" them when they were made but we certainly benefit by the results. The food you eat, clothes you wear, the furniture you sit on, the television you watch, the car you drive and the computer you post on. These things aren't a "worldview", they are the TRUTH OF LIFE! That truth of life tells us, since we were born, that all these things required an INTELLIGENT SOURCE. EVERY single human beings experience in life is a reality that CONSTANTLY demonstrates that ONLY INTELLIGENT sources CREATE, MAKE or DESIGN! Can you name ONE example of something that was made by man that wasn't? Trick question... of course not. This forces humans to now observe nature. Since every person's experience has shown them that things that are made required an intelligent source (An Experience with Reality, not a worldview) then the obvious and next question is, well then something Intelligent HAD to have made the trees, animals and ME too. THIS is the "why" God's first words were those that I quoted in Genesis 1:1. This is why God chose to tell us this FIRST, the "when". There is absolutely no rationale why any person should abandon the reality they've experienced all their lives to suddenly believe, yes BELIEVE, that things of even HIGHER and more ADVANCED complexity than ANYTHING MAN has ever made doesn't ALSO require an intelligent source. God created the intelligence in man and as we grew up and experienced that intelligence within the limitations of man, God knew that this would lead us to the next obvious observation. Something must have made the life I see and live, but who? Something must have made the fruits, vegetables, meat, what have you, that my parents prepared for me to eat etc. but who? God, that's who. This is "why" He decided "when" to tell us this as the FIRST REVELATION of His existence. He knew this would be our first question based on our experience in REALITY and that experience in reality is NOT a worldview, it's the truth. Therefore our Faith in that God is NOT a "blind" faith, it has a SOLID FOUNDATION in the reality we've ALL experienced. It is the Atheist worldview that has NO FOUNDATION WHATSOEVER!!! That IS a blind faith. It is the Atheist that must SHOW US, that NO INTELLIGENCE is required in the complexities and designs we see around us and in us. They can't even tell us WHY they believe that no intelligent source is required. How can they? What can they show us as an example of anything of any complexity or design that didn't require an intelligent source? What have they experienced that most people haven't??? Oh yes, rocks on the shore that form a letter "A". With all due respect that is a pathetic example. The burden of proof is on THEM, not us folks who take life as it is literally. We're not the ones living in a "worldview" we're the ones living viewing the world as it REALLY is.
  11. Well said, Goldliger. This has always been part of my argument. The evidence for God is overwhelming. There is no escaping the obvious because, if atheist's really gave it some serious thought, it's the only reality we know of. It's the only experience any of us can lay claim to that things like code, language etc. have ALWAYS had an intelligent source behind it, ALWAYS! The only reality and experience we know of, as well, is that anything made had a maker. There are NO exceptions! Nobody sees a chair in the middle of a forest and thinks it was the result of the wind knocking branches off the trees. Why don't we? Because it's been our experience with REALITY. Therefore atheists must SHOW us the contrary with the same type of REALITY how non living matter came to life somehow someway. Instead we get Fantasy, Imaginations, Ideas and Stories of how there is somehow a reality that none of us has ever seen or experienced for ourselves. Complexity with design and/or purpose are the signatures of the obvious that there MUST have been an intelligent source behind it for it's the only reality we've ever known and experienced.
  12. I found this website via some other Evolution vs Creationist forum and just thought it would be interesting to post it here. What I was surprised to find, maybe even a little shocked, was the use of embryology as "proof" of evolution. (I only saw the first 2 videos, the second he speaks more of embryology and I can only guess that in the 4th video he goes into further detail about it). Wasn't this an embarrassment to evolutionist scientists of Haeckel's faked drawing many decades ago??? I'm quite confused as to why this particular assumption, among the many other's from evolutionists, still persists. Anyways, if for nothing else I feel these types of videos serve to reveal the "latest" in evolutionary thinking, even if some of the "latest" involve ideas I thought were long ago abandoned by evolutionist scientists. http://www.youtube.com/user/donExodus2?ble...FB1F085BD950D0F
  13. It must have been a late night for me. I just want to clarify myself here. Observations are not limited by seeing the "physical" in that we can observe the "forces" of nature acting upon it as well. In other words, I don't "see", "observe" some kind of "blue" light eminating from the ground that shows gravity pulling on objects above it or some "green" haze appearing when we apply a magnet near metal. We can only observe the "affects" of gravity and magnetism but not the actual "force" that is pulling objects down to earth from gravity or metal onto magnets. I hope that makes sense. As far as seeing the "cause" for a macro occurrence, I mean to say that you can't just see a big tiger and see a house cat and make the conclusion that they were related based on that observation alone. Macro requires seeing the "mechanism" that is causing these changes in some way. You may not even have to observe the "mechanism" per se but certainly the affects of "some" mechanism should be observable. So if I see a dog giving birth to a puppy that seems to be growing something featherlike out of it's back, I may not see the "mechanism" that caused that but I certainly can see the affect of that mechanism. As far as macro is concerned, we don't ever observe either.
  14. Seth

    Macro-evolution

    Why do those who believe in evolution continually ask the question, "What is to stop microevolutionary changes from eventually becoming macroevolutionary ones? Do they not realize that the fact that they are even ASKING the question ALREADY defeats their naturalistic premise, since it has changed the argument from one about the "evidence" to one about "philosophy"? They don't even realize it. Nobody goes around asking the question, "What is to stop this tomato seed, that I plant in the ground under plenty of sunshine of which I water daily, from growing into a green pepper plant?" Why is a question like that not asked? Because we have OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE (Empirical) of this, is why we don't ask questions like that. To ask such a question would be to "suggest" that there is a "small" possibility that the tomato seed will grow into some other vegetable or "fruit". We have OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE OF REALITY that has CONTINUALLY shown that tomato seeds produce tomato plants. Nothing is to stop a tomato seed from growing into an orange tree if you "imagine" hard enough. It should be just as "silly" for an evolutionist to ask the question since they should ALREADY HAVE empirical evidence of the answer. But they NEVER do. Instead they want to bog us down with "philosophical" arguments of CREDULITY. (Why is it NOT "possible"?) Why couldn't a tomato seed "sloooooowly" and eventually become a green pepper or some "other" vegetable? Well my friend, until you can provide more than just a "philosophical" argument, the natural "evolutionary" process that you claim is happening should be quite easily demonstrated. I can easily show you how a tomato seed will become a tomato plant. Can you show us any examples to the contrary?
  15. Seth

    Evolution

    I was coming to the same conclusion myself Ikester. I just want to also add. When we are talking about "Beneficial" mutations it's like saying that removing the rubber off the rims of a car is beneficial to a car driving on railroad tracks. But put that same car with only rims on the road and it's deficient NOT improved. Personally I don't like the term "beneficial" in describing examples like sickle cell and other such examples because in reality they are NOT beneficial within the purpose they were meant and designed for. Cars with rubber on the rims were designed that way for the purpose of driving on surfaces not for driving on railroad tracks. So calling a car without rubber on their rims "beneficial" just makes no sense to me. As a Creationist I just don't follow along that evolutionist line of thinking. I'm not saying it's "wrong" to do so I just don't like giving them ANY wiggle room for their fantasy.
×

Important Information

Our Terms