Ninevite

 

I could turn this 180 degrees and start telling you how you really feel, and that you're lying to yourself, but I won't. It's insulting and counter productive.

I admit the possibility that I'm wrong on the grounds of a lack of evidence, and that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That being said, me being wrong doesn't automatically make you right. It could be Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or even Fleems. I have a very open mind on the subject. Remember that for most of my life, I was not atheist, and during that time, I would not consider any alternatives.

You, on the other hand, are unwilling to consider any other alternatives.

 

Ironically your open mind has no room for the "Christian God". My favorite part of your arguement is that it has to be anything other than the Christian God...hmmm?

This type of behaviour is very curious to me. Atheists are never quick to destroy other religions, no, they are very tolerant of them. Mention Christ and the atheist goes into a frothing-at-the-mouth tantrum as if he were demon possesed and a priest just splashed him with holy water. Very curious indeed.

Why is your hatred toward Christ and His followers, I wonder?

After the account given in Genesis, the Bible starts to give us some numbers, such as the ages of men when their sons are born (Adam was 130 when Seth was born). These numbers continue on up until after the flood. We are given numbers in regard to when temples were built, when the Israelites fled Egypt and so on and so forth.

It takes a little effort, but anyone can do it...you simply follow these numbers and you can calculate an aproximate age of the Earth. James Ussher came up with 4004bc for the creation, Johannes Kepler came up with 3992bc and Isaac Newton (probably rounding it off) asserts 4000bc.

Those are some "big name" estimates, though thousands upon thousands have calculated the age using the "Biblical Formula". You basically come up with a number close to 4000bc, add the 2000 years after Christ and you get roughly 6000 years for the age of the Earth.

Many argue against it, but it is important to me because this is what we get when we read God's word. If we don't try to reason as men and trust what God actually said, this is what the Bible actually says. Nothing added, or taken away.

The Bible begins and ends like a million other stories you may have read or seen played out on screen in movies. The story told is one of a fight between good and evil. Good creates everything, evil corrupts it, good comes up with a plan, the plan works and good wins. While I do not hold the belief that this is a salvation issue, I believe it is wrong to add billions of years to God's word where it does not exist and is unecessary.

Good luck, robby...

I'm sure God will understand when you explain you don't believe because a man couldn't prove to you He exists.

The Bible makes no claims of the age of the Earth so it will only be in dispute when Christians attempt to form an age argument by incorrectly applying scripture not intended for this purpose. It forms a diversion, which needn't exist, from the Christian mandate. Atheists don't believe in a Creator and it isn't strange that they use any reason to deny God.

 

You are forming unnecessary battles between Atheists and Christians and the age of the Earth shouldn't be placed as a stumbling block. BTW How does an old Earth weaken the Creation account ?

 

The Bible does in fact make a claim in regard to the age of the Earth and it's rather clear. That was the whole point of the OP. Some of us take the Bible literally and others do not. Personally I find it telling that many so blindly believe man's word that they question God's word...age of the Earth? I think so. To some of us, the issue is important.

I don't form unnecessary battles...I don't form any battles at all. The world is wicked enough to accomplish that without my help.

The truth is not complicated robby, it is quite simple. The truth is in the Bible. If you are not for Jesus, you are against Him. I have divided no one into any group. Jesus did that and He was quite clear.

You would like people to think the world is complicated, when it is very simple. There are those for Christ and those opposed to him. You attempt to make the world seem complicated because you are confused yourself and you want others to be confused as well.

Jesus is Lord. Simple. You fight against God, not me or any other man, but God himself and you think you can win?

Hello Alpha I agree mostly. There is the glaring problem though that if you attempt to allegorise Adam the people who speak of him in the bible, and genealogies including him,  are mistaken.imo What do you think about this ? I am reasoning on progressive creation atm ( which up to recently I held as OEC ) and  this is the main stumbling block. It is important that Adam was the first man created in God's image to accept the story of sin and redemption. 

And this, the rope-a-dope, is the exact same line used by the atheist...once he has you believing Adam was not real, you have no need for Christ. He can then tempt you to deny the deity of Christ and the fight is over.

Atheist wins.

If you believe the world is billions of years old, you have a weakness in your defense from the get go. The godless will exploit that weakness. One can go to their death bed believing in God and evolution, though that may very well be a difficult task and I commend those that do, but my point is not about the strength of faith of a man, but the motives of those that are teaching him lies.

 

 

The biggest issue of course is, that we don't see no monkey business in that. It is simply stated God created Man, period. This causes the biggest schism. 

 

Indeed. No monkey business in the Bible.

The major problem with "theistic evolution" is that every aspect of the theory is exactly the opposite of the Bible. Evolution is designed to contradict the Bible and destroy it's credibility. Trying to reconcile the two world views is a fool's errand. It cannot be done. That doesn't stop people from trying though.

I'm not saying Christians that accept evolution are not truley faithful, I'm saying that they are being led astray. The atheistic evolutionist is laughing at the goofy Christian he got to buy into his stupid theory...he knows damn well it will plant the seeds of doubt.

If you tell an atheist you are a young earth creationist, he will become very antagonistic and cruel. Tell him you believe in evolution and he will suddenly become very polite and patronizing as he knows he is leading you down the path he wants you to go...away from God.

I have seen this on many a forum...test the theory for yourself. Sign up for one forum as a young earther and yet again as a theistic evolutionist on another. I have done this. I was treated like a retard as a YEC, but spoon fed lies as a theistic evolutionist.

The atheistic evolutionist views the theistic evolutionist as a man on the ropes and benignly goes in for the knock out.

From the answers given in this thread, we are all lukewarm. Everyone who attempted to answer the question, with the exception of nebula, has stated that anyone who disagrees with another is lukewarm. It seems as though the requirement is that any "know-it-all" is a lukewarm Christian and when it comes to religious dogma, "know-it-alls" are a dime a dozen if not less.

Don't forget the rest of the message...Jesus said, "I was hungry and you gave me meat". I often give "spare change" or food to the homeless and pray for them, but I will not step foot inside a church. Does this make me lukewarm because one deed is hot and the other cold?

Nay, trust in the Lord and unwavering faith is on fire and HOT HOT HOT I say, and regardless of what other Christians do, I love God and I hunger and thirst after righteousness. I beg the Lord to return to us soon and I love the comforting embrace of the Lord. His forgiveness and guidance. I care nothing of the world and you choose your path, I will choose mine. I am cold and hot and lukewarm and the Lord loves me.

Talk to Him...does He shun you? If not, He loves you and you should count that as a blessing.

Could be.

Remember, in 732bc Damascus was attacked by the Assyrians and the city was conquered, but not left in ruins and was still inhabited afterward. Isaiah's prophecy speciffically states that's Damascus will no longer be a city. Isaiah was very detailed in his prophecies and after 2700 years the destruction of Damascus will be an awesome testimony to the word of God.

 

I agree with you that Neil's ideas are very interesting, they are unique and different for both the believers and the non-believers.

 

But I am not going to lie to you, I am a 50 year old man who has had a successful career in the Military, will soon hold a Masters Degree and takes the time to read and study what it is I believe.  I do not appreciate being talked down to like I am a 5th grader.  I do not like being told I don't even know what I believe.  these sorts of statements will never make one change their mind, they will only fortify the mind against.

Let's talk about this backfire thing for a moment.

Ask yourself this question: Why do we have presidential debates in the U.S.?

Mitt Romney is not trying to sway his opponent or change his way of thinking. He is trying to convince you that he is the right man for the Job. Where people got the idea that a religious debate was designed to change the mind of the participants is beyond me...when I engage in a discussion with Neil or anyone else, I am trying to expose the flaws in their thinking, not to them, but to those who are following along.

The Bible says to "prove all things"...while many are probably wrong, including myself, we are right to try and defend our position.

The witnesses are thought to be Moses and Elijah or even Enoch and Elijah.

Enoch and Elijah have yet to die the first death, though Moses appeared alongside Elijah at the mount of transfiguration. The purpose of the witnesses is to spread a message. I'm not sure "relativity" has ever done that.

The witnesses will eventually be killed and the Earth continues on for a short time after that...not really possible if the beast is a black hole. Every one everywhere would die at the same time as the witnesses if they were killed by gravity.

I think a more literal interpretation is needed here. I will stick with the witnesses being two men.

Let's not forget the prophet Isaiah here. Damascus is in turmoil and U.S. involvement may be inevitable (Obama may choose to strike without the approval of congress). If the U.S. steps in, Iran has threatened to strike Israel. This line of events could easily lead to the destruction of Damascus fulfilling the prophecy in Isaiah 17:1.

However...I don't think the U.S. is necessary to fulfill the prophecy, but it wouldn't hurt. It would draw Iran into the conflict for sure, though that might happen anyway.

 

Robert Gentry wrote Creation's Tiny Mystery. That does show the censorship. 

 

How?

 

Try reading it.

'there's no evidence for evolution therefore we're right'.

And yet you still believe it.

Am I getting this correct. Did anyone who wrote the bible actually witness the events or is it all second hand information?

 

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to the events described in their gospels. Mark was an associate of Peter (an eyewitness to the events) and Luke was an associate of Paul. Saul of Tarsus was a Jew commisioned by the Pharisees to stamp out Christianity. He killed many Christians and imprissoned many more.

Later, in Syria, he encountered Jesus and was converted to Christianity. He changed his name to Paul and became the "legendary preacher" we have today. He wrote 13 books of the new testament. 14 if you count Hebrews, which I do, but he never mentions himself in that book as he did with all the others.

Luke traveled with Paul for many years and encountered many eyewitnesses of the events described in his gospel. He set out to make a "more perfect" account, presumably than Mark and Matthew as he found them to be a little incomplete.

Many athiests have called Luke an "historian of the first rank" praising his ability to record events in history with the utmost diligence.

Well, technically, we have a Christian account of the Jews accusing them of stealing the body. Also, a missing body wouldn't prove resurrection; the body could have simply been stolen.

 

 

 

Stolen by whom?

The Pharisees and the Saducees had no motive to steal the body. In fact, they had all the reason in the world to produce a body. Certainly, Peter and company could not have stolen the body. Their motive is only logical after the fact, something they never would have expected and made no sense at the time. It would not have fit with their beliefs regarding not only the messiah, but it goes against their belief in a general resurrection.

Jesus, if He was the messiah was not suposed to die at the hands of His enemies. He was expected to rise to political power and conquer His enemies. These expectations coupled with the untimely death and horrific demise of their saviour would certainly not have motivated them to steal a body and perpetrate a hoax. Even if that were the case, one of them would have exposed the truth of the matter while faced with death.

I find it hard to believe that even one of them would have been willing to die for what they knew to be a lie, let alone most if not all of them. Surely one of them would have recanted. An extremist muslim might blow himself up for Allah as result of his beliefs, but he sincerely believes in his cause. He would not do such a thing otherwise.

Had the disciples of Jesus been lying, it is doubtful they would have been willing to die for something they knew was a lie. The two choices we have are: A) The disciples stole the body, hid it somewhere and pulled off the greatest con of all time or B) Jesus really did rise from the dead.

Given the testimony of the witnesses and having reviewed the physical evidence, it requires exponentially more faith to believe Jesus' body was stolen by a bunch of cowardly, illiterate fishermen during some nefarious plot to fool the world. The reward for which was persecution, ridicule, beatings, imprisonment and death.

On top of all that, the disciples did not even believe Jesus had raised from the dead until He appeared to them...again, this was an unexpected turn of events that no one of the day understood the significance of until after the fact. At the time the "body was stolen" no one had a motive to steal it.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/07/22/the-nazareth-inscription-proof-of-the-resurrection-of-christ.aspx

They are claiming to have valid scientific work that conclusively disproves the theory of evolution.  The importance of such a thing cannot be overstated.  If they have such a manuscript but aren't sharing it with the scientific community, I would like to see it and help them get it published.  If they have submitted it and it's been arbitrarily rejected, I would like to publicize this so that the truth can be told.

Lol. I'm sure you would.

Robert Gentry wrote Creation's Tiny Mystery. That does show the censorship. 

It certainly does. Even the laziest of investigators will discover the discrimination based only on the links I provided. Robert Gentry has been involved in court battles over this sort of thing for many years. Some people just don't want to see the truth.

What's interesting to me is that the Genesis creation account, which was written by Jews and for Jews, is understood by most modern Jews to not be indicative of young-earth creationism.

And what did the Jews of antiquity believe? What did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believe? What did Moses believe?

So you would tell the Jews who disagree with you that they don't know how to read their own texts?

Are you implying that all Jews believe your junk science? Many of them do not, what do you propose we tell them?

Ninevite,

 

You claimed, "creationists are on the rise among the scientific community".

 

The first article you link to gives no data to support this claim.  Further, it specifically talks about students, not members of the scientific community as you claimed.

 

The second article talks about state-run and private schools in England, not members of the scientific community as you claimed.

 

In order to support your claim, you need to present actual data describing the views on evolution and creationism among members of the scientific community, and that the numbers of "creationists" in that group are increasing.

You and I have a very different idea of what constitutes the scientific community, Gerald.

 

While I hold the stance that popularity means nothing in the creation/evolution debate, I think it is note worthy to point out that creationists are on the rise among the scientific community. 

 

 

Can you provide data backing up this claim?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highereducation

"A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong."

"In the United States there is growing pressure to teach creationism or "intelligent design" in science classes, despite legal rulings against it."

And this:

"There is an insidious and growing problem," said Professor Jones, of University College London. "It's a step back from rationality. They (the creationists) don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious disease as we see from the United States."

All quotes from the link above. And another article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-why-is-creationism-on-the-rise-and-does-it-have-a-place-in-education-927035.html

Your discrimination is showing.

 

So, I want to ask you, are creationist organisations not trying to get their discussions into the scientific community?

If so, why?

 

No, they're not.  If they were, they would actually have a manuscript and a pile of rejection letters.

 

But as we can see, some creationists apparently blame the scientific community for not accepting something that's never been submitted to them.  Bizarre.

 

Do you still maintain that these creationists are not submitting their work?

Okay,

So I went and studied this for myself...I googled it.

At best, it can be worked out either way. The Bible really doesn't take a position on this topic as far as I can tell. Having said that, geocentrists seem to advocate questioning one's faith should they except any other alternative.

They make the claim that the heliocentrist is accussing God of being a poor communicator, though the passages they quote tend to be "open to interpretation" given that many of them are found in the poetic books. Though I think the same arguement can be made, and reasonably so, that this is the case for passages quoted from outside the poetic books.

Even more, they blame Godlessness for one's exceptance of heliocentricty and blame the dark art for all kinds of degeneration, including, but not limited to, astrology.

In short, they tend to work themselves up over nothing and much ado about Bible passages that aren't even talking about cosmology. The Bible seems to plead the fifth on this one, so have it your way...it makes little difference in the grand scheme of things. This is clearly not a salvation issue as God seems to have not touched on the subject at all, though the geo seems convinced that it is the Bible vs. Science.

It is clearly science vs. science and heliocentricty wins. Keep in mind, Galileo himself thought it made no difference...I guess he figured, God can do things however he chooses.