[_ Old Earth _] To "Christian" evolutionists

[Heidi]

Sorry, but trying to seek knowledge from scientists who change their minds every decade is as foolish as seeking knowledge from anyone who claims to know better than God does. So since the track record of scientists as shaky at best, then I'll seek intelligence from God who is an infallible source. So if you always want to be right instead of always making false statements, then you can seek wisdom and knowledge from God too instead of from people who admit they're fallible. There can hardly be anything more foolish than seeking knowledge from people who admit they don't have the truth. :o But that's the illogic of atheists. :

We've been through this. The ability to change one's mind upon the introduction of new evidence is one of the beauties and strengths of science, that faith does not possess. A person of faith cannot change their mind when disproof is introduced. The Bible is not an infallible source; it is totally unreliable for many reasons, including its many contradictions, its scientific inaccuracies, the moral attrocities contained within it, and incorrect assumptions about the natural world.

Well scientists telling one lie after another might be beautiful to you (Which it is to Satan as well), but it all it does is to deceive people and it will certainly not help you on your deathbed! In addition, since you admit that you don't mind believing lies, then atheists aren't credible enough to tell people that the bible isn't true! :

So if you want to put your faith in admitted liars, then that's your folly, not mine. ;-) I have no more interest in conversing with people who respect lies over the truth. It's a waste of time. :roll:

 

[Dunzo]

Well scientists telling one lie after another might be beautiful to you (Which it is to Satan as well), but it all it does is to deceive people and it will certainly not help you on your deathbed! In addition, since you admit that you don't mind believing lies, then atheists aren't credible enough to tell people that the bible isn't true! :

So if you want to put your faith in admitted liars, then that's your folly, not mine. ;-) I have no more interest in conversing with people who respect lies over the truth. It's a waste of time. :roll:

Woops! You're putting words into my mouth again. Where did I admit to believing liars? Being misinformed (as early scientists would've been due to shortcomings in technology) does not equate to being a liar.
Pulling the old "on your deathbed" trick isn't going to work, either. I certainly wouldn't want to spend eternity with a deity who killed millions upon millions of people. Satan, in contrast, only killed 10 people (but I don't believe in him either, so it's OK).

By claiming that scientists are liars, you'd have to claim that the majority of modern science is incorrect, which obviously isn't true, and the fact that you're still here is testament to that (how old are you, by the way? I'm just curious). Medical science, chemical science, biological science, physics, mathematics, astronomy, etc etc (I could go on), all has to be incorrect for your claim of science being incorrect to be true.

 

[chad87]

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

jsut a few quotes in relation to dunzo post on murder

 

[Dunzo]

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

jsut a few quotes in relation to dunzo post on murder

And the christians claim the bible is a source of objective morality! What rubbish!

 

[Jayls5]

Well scientists telling one lie after another might be beautiful to you (Which it is to Satan as well), but it all it does is to deceive people and it will certainly not help you on your deathbed! In addition, since you admit that you don't mind believing lies, then atheists aren't credible enough to tell people that the bible isn't true! :

So if you want to put your faith in admitted liars, then that's your folly, not mine. ;-) I have no more interest in conversing with people who respect lies over the truth. It's a waste of time. :roll:

Given the fact that he never once admitted to believing in lies, thats ANOTHER straw man fallacy.

Once again, nice try.

 

[Drew]

We've been through this. The ability to change one's mind upon the introduction of new evidence is one of the beauties and strengths of science, that faith does not possess. A person of faith cannot change their mind when disproof is introduced.

This statement is, I would suggest, proof of the damage that the views of Heidi and people like her can wreak on the church. And this is a shame. When non-believers see such nonsense from people who claim to represent the church, it is not surprising that they make statements like the above. Heidi, please stop embarrassing the church.

I see no reason to believe that people of faith cannot change their mind when disproof is introduced. I am a person of faith - I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of all creation. I also believe that when oodles of empirical evidence suggests that the universe is not 6000 years old, that we have to honour such evidence. This does not deny the inspiration of the Scriptures, it merely helps us to interpret them properly and give proper respect to what God's created universe is telling us about itself (i.e. that it is billions of years old, not thousands).

I appeal to my fellow Christians - let the universe speak to us, listen to it. Do not approach it with a view of how it must be, based on a rigid and inflexible interpretation of the Scriptures.

 

[Guest]

We've been through this. The ability to change one's mind upon the introduction of new evidence is one of the beauties and strengths of science, that faith does not possess. A person of faith cannot change their mind when disproof is introduced.

This statement is, I would suggest, proof of the damage that the views of Heidi and people like her can wreak on the church. And this is a shame. When non-believers see such nonsense from people who claim to represent the church, it is not surprising that they make statements like the above. Heidi, please stop embarrassing the church.

I see no reason to believe that people of faith cannot change their mind when disproof is introduced. I am a person of faith - I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of all creation. I also believe that when oodles of empirical evidence suggests that the universe is not 6000 years old, that we have to honour such evidence. This does not deny the inspiration of the Scriptures, it merely helps us to interpret them properly and give proper respect to what God's created universe is telling us about itself (i.e. that it is billions of years old, not thousands).

I appeal to my fellow Christians - let the universe speak to us, listen to it. Do not approach it with a view of how it must be, based on a rigid and inflexible interpretation of the Scriptures.

The question would be about the validality of the 'statement of disproof'.

Not to mention, why listen to the creation - when we can listen to the Creator?

 

[Drew]

Not to mention, why listen to the creation - when we can listen to the Creator?

I am not crazy about the way you have phrased this - do you not think that the very way you have expressed this question does not give people the room to answer as follows: Creation is the work of God and it tells us things - we should listen to it.

 

[Guest]

Not to mention, why listen to the creation - when we can listen to the Creator?

I am not crazy about the way you have phrased this - do you not think that the very way you have expressed this question does not give people the room to answer as follows: Creation is the work of God and it tells us things - we should listen to it.

Romans clearly shows that Creation serves a purpose - it reveals that there is a Creator.

Therefore, does one listen to the creation or the Creator?

Who better to tell you what the painting means - the painting or the painter?

 

[Drew]

Who better to tell you what the painting means - the painting or the painter?

I see no reason at all to shoe-horn this into in an "either / or" choice. The created world is the handiwork of God. We honour Him by studying it and understanding it. It is an expression of who He is - the whole world is full of the glory of God (Isaiah 6). I think you are expressing a false choice with the "painting or the painter" formulation.

 

[Guest]

Who better to tell you what the painting means - the painting or the painter?

I see no reason at all to shoe-horn this into in an "either / or" choice. The created world is the handiwork of God. We honour Him by studying it and understanding it. It is an expression of who He is - the whole world is full of the glory of God (Isaiah 6). I think you are expressing a false choice with the "painting or the painter" formulation.

Yes - one can appreciate the creation - but it's purpose is not to be appreciated. It is to draw one to the Creator.

The problem with the environmental movement, green movement, etc - is that it stops at the creation.

It is an either/or choice. Do you stop at creation or move to the Creator.

Sorry, like it or not, there is black and white.

 

[Jayls5]

Yes - one can appreciate the creation - but it's purpose is not to be appreciated. It is to draw one to the Creator.

The problem with the environmental movement, green movement, etc - is that it stops at the creation.

It is an either/or choice. Do you stop at creation or move to the Creator.

Sorry, like it or not, there is black and white.

Doesn't that presuppose that there could be no other conception of creation of life? Say, for example, Deism. Or, God put into motion the ability of the universe to accomplish abiogenesis. As you have described it, it seems to be a false dilemma and limiting the choices.

 

[Guest]

Yes - one can appreciate the creation - but it's purpose is not to be appreciated. It is to draw one to the Creator.

The problem with the environmental movement, green movement, etc - is that it stops at the creation.

It is an either/or choice. Do you stop at creation or move to the Creator.

Sorry, like it or not, there is black and white.

Doesn't that presuppose that there could be no other conception of creation of life? Say, for example, Deism. Or, God put into motion the ability of the universe to accomplish abiogenesis. As you have described it, it seems to be a false dilemma and limiting the choices.

Forgive me for not being as learned. I do not fully understand all these terms you are using like "abiogenesis".

I believe there is One choice - The Creator of the Heavens and the Earth.

Sorry, I do not see mulitple choices something to be embraced. Usually confussion sets in, and the truth is dilutted.

 

[Jayls5]

Forgive me for not being as learned. I do not fully understand all these terms you are using like "abiogenesis".

I believe there is One choice - The Creator of the Heavens and the Earth.

Sorry, I do not see mulitple choices something to be embraced. Usually confussion sets in, and the truth is dilutted.

It's a pleasure to see someone who isn't quick to dismiss my posts on this forum.

Abiogenesis is a theory in which life was spawned naturally from interactions of matter and energy in the world. I do not personally subscribe to it, as I am not fully educated in the position. However, it is certainly an option. Deism, if you're not aware, is a theory in which God set into motion all of the events of the universe and then left personal interaction alone.

The fallacy of "false dilemma" entails that you have one of two choices when there are obviously more than two.

The conclusion that you have reached seems to be one conception of how God created life on earth. If you must adopt the conclusion that God exists, there are still scenarios available that would allow the conclusion of "God existing" while allowing an evolutionist perspective.

On the other hand, you might be arguing from the position of a God in which you have assigned certain necessary truths, such as creating humans from dust (as an example). If you want to sway the person you are arguing with, you must first establish whether or not he subscribes to your particular world view. Most Christians I have met believe in certain necessary truths besides God as "simply existing." In order to convince your audience, you need to show why your necessary truths should be accepted as fact, and from those facts, he will see why you have framed the choice between believing in a creator and merely "creation."

In order for someone to accept your argument, you must logically show why those are the only two choices as you have framed them. This might include defining Christianity as dependent on not allowing evolution.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Guest]

Forgive me for not being as learned. I do not fully understand all these terms you are using like "abiogenesis".

I believe there is One choice - The Creator of the Heavens and the Earth.

Sorry, I do not see mulitple choices something to be embraced. Usually confussion sets in, and the truth is dilutted.

It's a pleasure to see someone who isn't quick to dismiss my posts on this forum.

Abiogenesis is a theory in which life was spawned naturally from interactions of matter and energy in the world. I do not personally subscribe to it, as I am not fully educated in the position. However, it is certainly an option. Deism, if you're not aware, is a theory in which God set into motion all of the events of the universe and then left personal interaction alone.

The fallacy of "false dilemma" entails that you have one of two choices when there are obviously more than two.

The conclusion that you have reached seems to be one conception of how God created life on earth. If you must adopt the conclusion that God exists, there are still scenarios available that would allow the conclusion of "God existing" while allowing an evolutionist perspective.

On the other hand, you might be arguing from the position of a God in which you have assigned certain necessary truths, such as creating humans from dust (as an example). If you want to sway the person you are arguing with, you must first establish whether or not he subscribes to your particular world view. Most Christians I have met believe in certain necessary truths besides God as "simply existing." In order to convince your audience, you need to show why your necessary truths should be accepted as fact, and from those facts, he will see why you have framed the choice between believing in a creator and merely "creation."

In order for someone to accept your argument, you must logically show why those are the only two choices as you have framed them. This might include defining Christianity as dependent on not allowing evolution.

I hope that makes sense.

I am not here to have you accept my argument. I am not in the business of "winning arguements". Sorry, but that is not the task I have been given. My responsibility is to tell - if you do not like what I have to tell - then I suggest taking it up with upper Management. He can be reached 24/7 through prayer - He has also left a manual to read and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have when you read it.

As I have said - the creation around testifies to the existence of a Creator. The Creator has also described how He created. Who am I to judge or to argue with the Creator on how He created? Who better knows? Someone that is "studying the creation" or the Creator Himself?

 

[Jayls5]

I am not here to have you accept my argument. I am not in the business of "winning arguements". Sorry, but that is not the task I have been given. My responsibility is to tell - if you do not like what I have to tell - then I suggest taking it up with upper Management. He can be reached 24/7 through prayer - He has also left a manual to read and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have when you read it.

As I have said - the creation around testifies to the existence of a Creator. The Creator has also described how He created. Who am I to judge or to argue with the Creator on how He created? Who better knows? Someone that is "studying the creation" or the Creator Himself?

That's an interesting perspective, but I can't say that I agree with it. God, according to humans, has left countless different manuals dictating his rules and wants all across the globe.

It is certainly a possibility that you are anthropomorphizing God (attributing human characteristics to him). It is not abundantly clear that we must believe one thing or the other, unless you believe in some sort of human made holy text and consider it the word of God.

 

[Guest]

That's an interesting perspective, but I can't say that I agree with it. God, according to humans, has left countless different manuals dictating his rules and wants all across the globe.

It is certainly a possibility that you are anthropomorphizing God (attributing human characteristics to him). It is not abundantly clear that we must believe one thing or the other, unless you believe in some sort of human made holy text and consider it the word of God.

Again - why are you relying on humans? Why rely on the creation? Rely on the Creator.

seek Him - not the creation.

 

[jwu]

Who better knows? Someone that is "studying the creation" or the Creator Himself?

The creator. Unfortunately He doesn't tell us about how He created everything. Genesis was written by Moses, not God...and it has "this is a metaphor!" written all over it. It makes no sense when taken as literal history and is completely incompatible with the available evidence when taken as such.

Hence it makes sense to study the actual creation as a guide to the interpretation of genesis.

 

[Jayls5]

That's an interesting perspective, but I can't say that I agree with it. God, according to humans, has left countless different manuals dictating his rules and wants all across the globe.

It is certainly a possibility that you are anthropomorphizing God (attributing human characteristics to him). It is not abundantly clear that we must believe one thing or the other, unless you believe in some sort of human made holy text and consider it the word of God.

Again - why are you relying on humans? Why rely on the creation? Rely on the Creator.

seek Him - not the creation.

I'm afraid you are asking some very loaded questions there that would require some very lengthy philosophical answers.

The same questions can be asked for you. Why are you relying on the Creator? Why do you seek Him, assuming He even exists?

Do you think your methodology of seeking him is even fruitful? Do you honestly think you found him? Historically, vague notions of God did absolutely nothing for us, sparing a moral code (which could exist without God anyway).

Which God is right, which should be followed? Should we sacrifice people at the altar to appease the Sun god as the Aztecs did?

Why seek the creation, you ask? It leads to actual objective truth instead of filling a subjective emotional void. Scientific pursuits lead us forward and allow us to progress as a species. Why am I relying on humans, you ask? Humans actually accomplish things. Historically, God has not been a beacon of objective truth. Assuming you disagree, please tell me what God will do for me.

 

[Guest]

I'm afraid you are asking some very loaded questions there that would require some very lengthy philosophical answers.

The same questions can be asked for you. Why are you relying on the Creator? Why do you seek Him, assuming He even exists?

Do you think your methodology of seeking him is even fruitful? Do you honestly think you found him? Historically, vague notions of God did absolutely nothing for us, sparing a moral code (which could exist without God anyway).

Which God is right, which should be followed? Should we sacrifice people at the altar to appease the Sun god as the Aztecs did?

Why seek the creation, you ask? It leads to actual objective truth instead of filling a subjective emotional void. Scientific pursuits lead us forward and allow us to progress as a species. Why am I relying on humans, you ask? Humans actually accomplish things. Historically, God has not been a beacon of objective truth. Assuming you disagree, please tell me what God will do for me.

I think you just struck a note there! Here is the difference between science and God: people have and always will stipulate the existence of God, but nobody stipulates the existence of Newton's Laws, unless they're crazy. And if they doubt that Newton's laws exist then they can jump off a really high cliff and the proof is them hitting the ground at terminal velocity! But if anybody doubts the existence of God, they can't just jump off the same cliff and pray that gravity will be reversed, then survive the jump.

Now somebody will come and say: yes, but there are people who have survived falling from 10,000 feet, but when they were asked what was on their mind, they didn't say God, they said that they were thinking about their mom, sister, brother, g/f, hell even their puppies!

If that's not enough to prove you that God does not naturally pop up in people's heads, then why don't you look at the world: if God made all people, then there should be a sub-conscious knowledge of the existence of God in ALL people! But that is not the case, most people are born and if not exposed to Christianity, will die without the knowledge of God!

If God made people, loves all of them, and wants all of them to get a chance to get to heaven, then how come only the people that are exposed to Christianity get that chance? If I was born on a remote island, and according to the Bible I am God's child, then how come I never learn about the existence of God unless Christians come and tell me that he "exists"?!?!

There are too many unanswered questions and there are too many different, inconsistent and illogical attempts at explanation- NONE MAKE SENSE!