ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Slogan/motto:
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
Reputation:
June 2nd, 2010, 05:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke
I would find some areas of common ground with you here, but I don't understand why you would prefer evolution over intelligent design no matter the time span, its illogical to think something can be made with out a design, and a builder to construct it so it won't fail. Life itself shows that principle to be true, from the house you live in to the car your drive.
It is not a question about preference, it is a question about evidence. Evolution is not illogical, there is selection going on in nature. The environment selects the traits that best fit it. So if a mutation occurs, the environment determines whether that mutation was beneficial or not. Desert colored mice living on desert colored rocks will benefit from their desert colored coats, and the mutation for black fur coats would be detrimental since predators can easily spot them. But the same mice expanded to an area covered by black lava rock, the same mutation happened there and there it was highly favorable and thus selected for since the black mice were much harder to spot on black lava rock. Then you have a split, one area with desert colored mice and one with black colored mice. So the environment does the "designing" by natural selection.
You can not compare it to a car or a house. They are non-living things, they do not reproduce or have mutations. That is like saying that there are tiny fairies inside every woman constructing the baby because that is how cars and houses are built
"By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." (Luke 1:78-79)
“There is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future.”
"I'm not surprised. It is par for the course. It affirms to me what kind of character you have."
I got to it within fifteen minutes----not sure what that has to do with character.
A few housekeeping items:
I don't get all posts when I subscribe to a thread. Not sure why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
[Game show goofiness] "I don't really care what you were looking for."
Then why did you ask me to "contribute"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
"By answering my questions in your own words. And not relying on scripture..."
I rely on scripture. If you'd like a godless, humanist perspective, there are plenty to oblige around here: Plastik Buddah, Alate_One, Kmoney, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
"...to throw a vague and ambiguous answer at me."
What response was vague or ambiguous? I'm happy to discuss most things unlike the deceivers around here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
[C.S. Lewis] "It is a good quote."
I like it too. Mere Christianity is a great book. I like the way C.S. Lewis writes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
[YEC]
Not a salvation issue. But Genesis is the foundation of our faith: value of life (Ge 1:26), definition of marriage (Ge 2:24), trust in the Lord not self (Gen. 5:22, 24; Gen. 6:9). Those who reject God's word (Ex 20:11; 31:17) for man's opinion err in other ways, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
[God wants us holy. He is holy (Lev 11:44).] "Do you think your faith makes you exempt from being honest and sincere?"
Christians should be honest (Gen. 42:11). How do you think I am not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
[Ps 19:1] "And your point is?"
We have all that we need to know God: internal testimony (Ro 2:15) external testimony (Ps 19:1) and his word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
[Men snotty ingrates after miracles] "Snotty? Is that the best you have? How do you determine which miracles we can do without?"
That is not for me to determine. But, you asked my opinion.
Miracles:
4.*****Were evidences of a divine commission. Ex 4:1-5; Mr 16:20.
5.*****The Messiah was expected to perform. Mt 11:2,3; Joh 7:31.
6.*****Jesus was proved to be the Messiah by. Mt 11:4-6; Lu 7:20-22; Joh 5:36; Ac 2:22.
Torrey, R.A.: The New Topical Text Book : A Scriptural Text Book for the Use of Ministers, Teachers, and All Christian Workers. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos research Systems, Inc., 1995, c1897
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
"I sense more diversion from a straight answer to my questions."
Yes, (though that may not be what Genesis 1:1 actually says in Hebrew), through the big bang, stellar evolution etc.
Yes, though these verses are minimally supportive. Do you believe God LITERALLY "knits you together in your mother's womb"?
Yes, but it is still sexual sin, like others. In the NT they are all lumped together.
Yes, through evolution. (I believe male and female are inevitable)
Yes.
Depends on what you mean by "natural laws". I do not know enough about the nature of miracles to say whether "natural laws" are violated or no.
Yes and I've told you this a dozen times already.
Ok fine. Thank you for answering my questions. I'll stop making fun of you now.
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104557
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
June 2nd, 2010, 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
I got to it within fifteen minutes----not sure what that has to do with character.
Well, I may have judged you too quickly. Since this is the first time I have seen you give some direct answers to direct questions. I appreciate that, thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
A few housekeeping items:
I was wondering how you can accept that "made in his image" is figurative but then reject the idea that other parts of Genesis are figurative? You use empirical evidence from the world to accept the first case, but then reject the second case even though there is empirical evidence for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
I don't get all posts when I subscribe to a thread. Not sure why.
No problem. Thanks for giving the effort on this last post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
Then why did you ask me to "contribute"?
Telling me what you think my answer should be, was not what I meant with regard to you contributing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
I rely on scripture. If you'd like a godless, humanist perspective, there are plenty to oblige around here: Plastik Buddah, Alate_One, Kmoney, etc.
Empirical evidence is not Godless. Since God created the natural world. This is an inaccurate analyses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
What response was vague or ambiguous? I'm happy to discuss most things unlike the deceivers around here.
Up until this post the vast majority if not all your responses have been vague and ambiguous.
I think most people do not intend to deceive others. I think they inadvertantly do so, based on gullibility and a poor methodology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
I like it too. Mere Christianity is a great book. I like the way C.S. Lewis writes.
Me too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
Not a salvation issue. But Genesis is the foundation of our faith: value of life (Ge 1:26), definition of marriage (Ge 2:24), trust in the Lord not self (Gen. 5:22, 24; Gen. 6:9). Those who reject God's word (Ex 20:11; 31:17) for man's opinion err in other ways, too.
I agree. It is not a salvation issue.
What you seem to ignore is that I trust the Lord also. I do not think that we should deny empirical evidence for the natural world based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. I do not think that trusting the Lord requires such willful ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
Christians should be honest (Gen. 42:11). How do you think I am not?
By using inaccurate explanations from the YEC sources you chose, without examining the other side of the issue. That is deceipt through ommission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
We have all that we need to know God: internal testimony (Ro 2:15) external testimony (Ps 19:1) and his word.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
Miracles:
4.*****Were evidences of a divine commission. Ex 4:1-5; Mr 16:20.
5.*****The Messiah was expected to perform. Mt 11:2,3; Joh 7:31.
6.*****Jesus was proved to be the Messiah by. Mt 11:4-6; Lu 7:20-22; Joh 5:36; Ac 2:22.
Torrey, R.A.: The New Topical Text Book : A Scriptural Text Book for the Use of Ministers, Teachers, and All Christian Workers. Oak Harbor, WA : Logos research Systems, Inc., 1995, c1897
"...[T]his is the first time I have seen you give some direct answers to direst questions. I appreciate that, thank you."
You're welcome. To try to get past point A before moving on to point B. I'm not good at multi-tasking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
"I was wondering how you can accept that "made in his image" [as] figurative but then reject the idea that other parts of Genesis are figurative?"
Jesus confirms the creation account and that God made man male and female:
"From the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female (Mk 10:6).’"
"He who made them at the beginning made them male and female (Mt 19:4)."
"Genesis 1 through 11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that:
(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were approximately the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience;
(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story;
(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark.
Why do you think the world attacks Genesis 1 through 11?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
"Empirical evidence is not Godless."
Agreed. The way we interpret that evidence can lead to godlessness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
"I trust the Lord also..."
That's all I care about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
"I do not think that we should deny empirical evidence for the natural world based on a literal interpretation of Genesis..."
I don't either. When we believe that God created the world as He said he did, we gain confidence in our faith ( Ps 124:8; 146:5,6).
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
"By using inaccurate explanations from the YEC sources you chose, without examining the other side of the issue..."
Most people were taught that evolution is an undisputed fact. With the evidence we have today, it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than it does not believe scripture. The Bible got it right all along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noguru
[Miracles] "And your point is?"
Miracles were useful. Creation was a miracle. The resurrection was a miracle. That's important. "That all I have to say about...that (Gump)."
Most people were taught that evolution is an undisputed fact. With the evidence we have today, it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than it does not believe scripture. The Bible got it right all along.
The evidence today continues to cement ToE's place in modern science. Care to make a wager? How much would you bet that ToE will be overturned by YEC in the next 10 years? The next 20? The next 100? Ever?
Or perhaps you would like to provide us with some of this "evidence"? Note: the opinion pieces of non-biologists at AiG are not evidence.
"Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us--if at all--not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot γνῶθι σεαυτόν
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104557
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
June 2nd, 2010, 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
Jesus confirms the creation account and that God made man male and female:
Since sexual reproduction had to be around before humans emerged then this is not contradicted by evolution and the natural processes involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
"From the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female (Mk 10:6).’"
Yes, and? You think Jesus should have mentioned single-celled organisms indiscussing the point He is makling here? Why? He is talking about marriage between a man and a woman. Why would he concolute things by adding a biology lesson on single-celled organisms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
"He who made them at the beginning made them male and female (Mt 19:4)."
Yes, refer to my previous response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
"Genesis 1 through 11 intended to convey to their readers the idea that:
(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were approximately the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience;
That is your claim, but the empirical evidence stands in stark contrast to this claim. Have you considered the possiblity that a seven work week is being presented as a model by which to acknowledge God's creation? I mean if we modeled our work week after the actual creation it would take an awful long time to get to the sabath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the Biblical story;
This does not dispute evolution either. The first peson to have a relationship with God, Adam, did exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguished all human and animal life except for those in the ark.
Again the empirical evidence does not support a global flood. It does support a large local flood, which would have encompassed the entire known world to Noah. It is also contradictory to propose that God extinguished all life, when even YEC's know that's not what happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
It is clear, therefore, that belief in the historical truth of Genesis is not a new phenomenon."
I did not say it was. There have always been and there will always be scientifically illiterate people such as yourself.
I don't celebrate evlution. That is another absurd claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
Why do you think the world attacks Genesis 1 through 11?
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
Agreed. The way we interpret that evidence can lead to godlessness.
So you think we should use a YEC model as a research program in the material sciences?
You do realize that this was done. And that it was Christian scientists who were the first to see that Genesis could not be a scientifically accurate account of origins based on the empirical evidence.
Viewing Genesis as a culturally based metaphorical representation of our relationship to God, and his power over creation does not lead to Godlessness. There are many culturally based figures of speech used in scripture and are accepted as such by even YEC, yet it has not lead to Godlessness. This is another inaccurate claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
That's all I care about.
Well, I suggest that you raise your standards just a little. Again this is not a salvation issue. But if you want to actually be a powerful witness to your faith, by sticking to an honest representation of reality, you should consider the alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
I don't either. When we believe that God created the world as He said he did, we gain confidence in our faith ( Ps 124:8; 146:5,6).
I do not see anything in Genesis that supports a claim that it is a literal, scientifically accurate, or comprehensive account of biological origins. The claim that YECism is a valid scientific model is both your premise to interpret data and the conclusion you arrive at from that interpretation. So what you are left doing is making the evidenc fit your model, rather than making your model fit the evidence. This is exactly why you feel the need to ommitt pertinent evidence when considering the most likely model. This makes your methodology one that is based on a specific theology rather than science.
You do realize that the "supernatural" by definition cannot be investigated through methodological naturalism? This does not mean that we cannot investigate the model that can be constructed from a YEC interpretation of Genesis. When we do a rigorous critical analyses it becomes apparent that the YEC model is not supporte by the empirical evidence. This does not mean that the YEC model is not true. It simply means that based on the scientific methodology it is not the most likely scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
Most people were taught that evolution is an undisputed fact.
No theory in science is entirely undisputed. This claim is based on your ignorance of science, rather than an accurate representation of the claims made by scientists.
The model of common ancestry and old ages is well supported by the empirical evidence and has proven to be robust in regard to alternate explanations in the material sciences. However, there are other tangential issues that are still quite contraversial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
With the evidence we have today, it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than it does not believe scripture.
This is another inaccurate statement, which seems to be based on your narrow diet of creationist literature. Formulating how a theory is best supported by the empirical evidence is not faith. It is science. Neither does it take faith to accept that natural processes are the most likely cause of most everything in the world. A Christian who recognizes the virgin birth, the incarnation, or any other of Jesus' miracles still applies the "supernatural" to a miniscule portion of what is accepted as reality. So accepting natural explanations is not contradictory for that view either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
The Bible got it right all along.
The Bible has been right all along. Genesis was just not meant to be a scientifically accurate, literal, or comprehensive account of biological origins and biodiversity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by serpentdove
Miracles were useful. Creation was a miracle. The resurrection was a miracle. That's important. "That all I have to say about...that (Gump)."
I have looked at it, Serpent- I have studied biology down to the cellular and genetic levels and up to zoology and botany. I am not a scientist like some here but I do understand the evidence and what has been made of it.
There is zero evidence that stands against the primacy of ToE in explaining modern life. Zero. Just hot air and desperation.
And the ad homs continue. Your lies about me have no bearing on the veracity of ToE in the first place. Only someone on the losing team would feel pressured to try and redirect attention in that way.
"Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us--if at all--not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot γνῶθι σεαυτόν
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104557
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
June 2nd, 2010, 06:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha
I have looked at it, Serpent- I have studied biology down to the cellular and genetic levels and up to zoology and botany. I am not a scientist like some here but I do understand the evidence and what has been made of it.
There is zero evidence that stands against the primacy of ToE in explaining modern life. Zero. Just hot air and desperation.
And the ad homs continue. Your lies about me have no bearing on the veracity of ToE in the first place. Only someone on the losing team would feel pressured to try and redirect attention in that way.
Yes, and you will notice how snakebird did not address my responses at all. Another one of her hit and run threads. She is only doing herself a disservice. If she thinks her strategy actually helps her case, she is sadly mistaken.
So you're back to trying to pull the wool over other peoples yourself there eh SD? Classy. Lying about people makes you look very stupid and desperate, even more so when the exact same lies were dismantled some time back.
If you pull your woobie over your eyes, sure. Why do you work daily to undermine the Bible and pull the wool over other's eyes? Mt 7:15.
That's funny coming someone pushing primitive cosmology as modern science. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm not going to bother with the repetitious ad homs.
"Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us--if at all--not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot γνῶθι σεαυτόν
--not sure what that has to do with character.
What's new? 
~ J Vernon McGee Ro 3:23, 5:8, 6:23, 10:9, 10:13.
I'll stop making fun of you now. 
I'm not good at multi-tasking. 
look at it. 
- I have studied biology down to the cellular and genetic levels and up to zoology and botany. I am not a scientist like some here but I do understand the evidence and what has been made of it. 
woobie over your eyes, sure. 
Lying about people makes you look very stupid and desperate, even more so when the exact same lies were dismantled some time back.
Linear Mode
