The All-Powerful Creator

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Your arguments are not contradictory, they are just wrong; comparing the expansion of the universe with the explosion

of a grenade just shows a very low degree of knowledge in physics. W. Pauli would say that your theory is not even wrong.

And this is as true today as it was false yesterday, and may or may not be true tomorrow.

[Don Fanucci]

And if He refuses to be tested, by answering what he said to the devil when the devil said, "If you're really the Son of God, turn these stones into bread"

What then, then you'll conclude that it must have happened naturalistically?

No, we wouldn't know how he did it, but if it were Jesus, would we care? On the otherhand, if it were his intention to show that he could do it miraculously, perhaps to convince non believers, it would be in his interest to have it tested and have the testers be stumped.

Except if God did actually create everything just the way He said. Since science precludes that and assumes naturalism, how could it possibly be the best tool to discover origins?

Because it is the only tool. How do you test God? And if it were the case that creation were true, that's fine with me.

Indeed the illustration has limits, all illustrations do, but it's clear you got the point. Take for instance one of the favourite proofs for evolution namely homology. It is offered that this is strong evidence for evolution because evolution predicts it. This is a fallacy of affirming the consequent. There is no reason why a designer wouldn't reuse working designs, so the fact of homology be interpreted either way.

Not from the illustration. You had no outcome, so we could conclude nothing. As far as homology, you'd be right. And if it were just fossils, you'd be right again. Or just carbon dating. Or just geology. Or just physics. But here's the problem. Any discipline that has been applied to evolution concludes the same thing. Faith-based disciplines are the only ones that do not because they cannot be falsified.

Do you understand that logically if there are only two possibilities for a certain outcome, and one is shown to be unsufficient, the other possibility must by default, be true.

You've set the conditions at two. But we don't know how many alternatives there are. If two, you are correct. But see my previous post. If you are weighing a faith based explanation, then you need to weigh them all.

Playing down creation research as 'little bits' that failed review is a pretty dishonest generalisation. It's precisely this biased mentality that results in creationist research being rejected out of hand.

No its not at all. As a christian and scientist, I was at least hoping that creationism did not have scientific weaknesses. I like debate, but I would also like the possibility of seeing God everywhere, even where people say he isn't. Unfortunately, I've read a lot of creationists. I've gone through the big web sites. The science is dismal. I don't doubtthere are some good creationists who are scientists. I don't doubt that they do research or publish. But when they try to disprove evolution, it is high school level reasoning laced with extensive dishonesty, misinformation, and poor science. It is depressing to see creationists stoop to that level.

The idea that creationist must come up with their own scientific explanations for origins is unreasonable.

When Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation he didn't have to also prove where living organisms come from.

They don't need to. They just need to act like true scientists.

Besides, requiring a scientific creation hypothesis assumes naturalistic creation, which is circular. We don't believe God created everything naturalistically, that's the whole point. Again one must ask, why should science be the tool to explain origins?

There is no other tool. Creationism is an explanation, but it is not a tool for examining anything. What are the "techniques" of creationism?

But this discovery is all but impossible because, as I said, most times the dates of the rocks are determined by the fossils themselves. No scientist will bother spending grant money dating rabbit fossils.

Perhaps someone will. But these things have come up before and shown to be false or phony.

[LuftWaffle]

No, we wouldn't know how he did it, but if it were Jesus, would we care? On the otherhand, if it were his intention to show that he could do it miraculously, perhaps to convince non believers, it would be in his interest to have it tested and have the testers be stumped.

I came up with two tests that would go toward showing that the miracle in Cana would be a very unique, if not miraculous, event. In doing so, showing that the effects of miracles can be subjected to testing. You've pretended not to understand it and opted for Jesus repeating the miracle because it's 'in His best interest'. However, remember what we're talking about? We're talking about origins which is historic and cannot be repeated.

Because it is the only tool. How do you test God? And if it were the case that creation were true, that's fine with me.

Seriously? Modern origins science with its materialistic assumptions is the only tool available to humans to discover our origins?

First you said science is the best tool, now you say it's the only tool, which is it?

"Actually, its the tool we use because its the best one we have at the time." - Don Fanucci

"Because it is the only tool" - Don Fanucci

Not from the illustration. You had no outcome, so we could conclude nothing. As far as homology, you'd be right. And if it were just fossils, you'd be right again. Or just carbon dating. Or just geology. Or just physics. But here's the problem. Any discipline that has been applied to evolution concludes the same thing. Faith-based disciplines are the only ones that do not because they cannot be falsified.

So even though I'm correct about homology, all the other evidence (out there) prove me wrong. This is such a typical evolutionary response. The best evidence is always the ones not being dicussed right now.

I can come up with a lot of weak reasons for there being a roadhouse at the edge of the universe. But lots of weak reasons don't make a strong case. The 'vast body of evidence' is only convincing from afar, it seems.

You've set the conditions at two. But we don't know how many alternatives there are. If two, you are correct. But see my previous post. If you are weighing a faith based explanation, then you need to weigh them all.

Yes, the basic premise is that the cause is either supernatural or natural. What third option would you like to invoke?

If you're under the impression that creationism is meant to prove that the Judeo-Christian God made everything you're labouring under a misconception. Muslim apologist Harun Yahya uses the same design inferences that we do. In fact most religions can refute neo-darwinism using the same means because darwinism is at its core materialistic.

By the way, let me ask you something: what do you think is going to happen when Jesus returns? Are we going to sit around in limbo waiting for the new heaven and the new earth to cool down, and evolve some livable conditions? Is God sitting as His desk watching the clock because the hopeful monsters are coming along as quickly as they should?

Now if God is going to create the new heaven and earth ex-nihilo and quickly, why did He mess around with such an inefficient and wasteful process such as evolution where this heaven and earth is concerned?

No its not at all. As a christian and scientist, I was at least hoping that creationism did not have scientific weaknesses. I like debate, but I would also like the possibility of seeing God everywhere, even where people say he isn't. Unfortunately, I've read a lot of creationists. I've gone through the big web sites. The science is dismal. I don't doubtthere are some good creationists who are scientists. I don't doubt that they do research or publish. But when they try to disprove evolution, it is high school level reasoning laced with extensive dishonesty, misinformation, and poor science. It is depressing to see creationists stoop to that level.

These broad-brush statements are entirely useless and subjective.

Have you ever bothered communicating with these creation scientists, on the big sites? Have you done what any responsible Christian would do and contacted them and told them where they're wrong. You're a scientist and they're scientists. If their science is so blatantly bad, then it would be no problem for you to correct them from a scientific perspective, instead of just hanging around on Christian forums complaining to laymen about them.

They don't need to. They just need to act like true scientists.

And how exactly do true scientists act?

Do real scientists speculate on Rodhocetus having a fluke when in fact it does not?

The picture below is an artists representation of Rodhocetus based on a partial fossil (skull, part of the spine and ribs)

http://www.tel-et-co.../rodhocetus.gif

After a complete skeleton has been found

http://c.ask.nate.co..._1229970122.jpg

Yet, where told that Gingerich's research on whale evolution is probably some of the best evidence there is for evolution.

When Gingerich was interviewed about the, now missing fluke, he said, "we speculated..."

I agree with Kenneth Poppe when he says, regarding the fragmented nature of the evidence for evolution, "I can see why an evolutionist would never point out that about 4 percent of the evidence has to cover about 60 percent of the time. Again, this is their ace in the hole, actually benefiting them because so little information leaves them free to imagine with impunity."

This is why my friend OldEnglishSheepdog speaks of materialism of the gaps. The theory of evolution rests not on the evidence but upon the gaps between the evidence.

There is no other tool. Creationism is an explanation, but it is not a tool for examining anything. What are the "techniques" of creationism?

But as I said, mainstream origins science operates on top of the philosophical assumption of materialism. It's not the operational science I have a problem with but the underlying assumptions which guide the interpretation.

Perhaps someone will. But these things have come up before and shown to be false or phony.

Perhaps, Should I hold my breath?

What 'things' have come up before? Dating rabbits, or are you introducing a new topic now?

I can see that I was wrong about you, Don, and I'm quite sad about it. I was excited to have an expert here,

but you're not some scientist who joined this forum and happened to stumble upon topics that interest you and to which you can add valuable input based on your scientific expertise. It's evident you're here to promote evolution and campaign against creationism and you're using the same tired and biased rhetoric that anti-creationist websites offer. It tells me that it's your indoctrination in anti-creationism that drives your posts, not your education in science and not your own experience. Which in turn means you're relying on your education solely to add credulity to the familiar propaganda that we see.

There's no point in wasting further time. I know where to find TalkOrigins and ReasonsToBelieve.

Edited March 23, 2011 by LuftWaffle

[Don Fanucci]

I came up with two tests that would go toward showing that the miracle in Cana would be a very unique, if not miraculous, event. In doing so, showing that the effects of miracles can be subjected to testing. You've pretended not to understand it.

Maybe I wasn't pretending? Brevity and clarity are two important criteria for a dialog. I tend to think as a scientist, which is partial to short, fact-based discussions, not as a philosopher. Perhaps were not a good match.

First you said science is the best tool, now you say it's the only tool, which is it?

"Actually, its the tool we use because its the best one we have at the time." - Don Fanucci

"Because it is the only tool" - Don Fanucci

Both. One is being statistically accurate in that there may be an unknown method that has yet to be discovered/invented. The other is being practical for the current discussion.

So even though I'm correct about homology,

No you are not correct. Any tool for categorizing can have weaknesses. However, if it is robust enough, it will be corroborated by independent methods.

I can come up with a lot of weak reasons for there being a roadhouse at the edge of the universe. But lots of weak reasons don't make a strong case. The 'vast body of evidence' is only convincing from afar, it seems.

And the evidence against evolution is based on what? Reinterpretation of published studies?

Now if God is going to create the new heaven and earth ex-nihilo and quickly, why did He mess around with such an inefficient and wasteful process such as evolution where this heaven and earth is concerned?

I wouldn't presume to know God's will.

These broad-brush statements are entirely useless and subjective.

Have you ever bothered communicating with these creation scientists, on the big sites? Have you done what any responsible Christian would do and contacted them and told them where they're wrong. You're a scientist and they're scientists. If their science is so blatantly bad, then it would be no problem for you to correct them from a scientific perspective, instead of just hanging around on Christian forums complaining to laymen about them.

Great point. The reason is they have proven time and time again that they are not interested in being corrected. They are only interested in coming up with any kind of data, whether it is manufactured, reinterpreted, wrong, whatever, to fit a preconceived conclusion. Why would anyone waste their time. As an example, intelligent design was taken seriously by scientists. It was fairly mainstream and had its day. It was entirely disproven. Did that stop Behe? No. He testified Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and was demolished. A more simpler reason is that again, for the millionth time, science and the supernatural do not mix.

And how exactly do true scientists act?

Do real scientists speculate on Rodhocetus having a fluke when in fact it does not?

The picture below is an artists representation of Rodhocetus based on a partial fossil (skull, part of the spine and ribs)

http://www.tel-et-co.../rodhocetus.gif

After a complete skeleton has been found

http://c.ask.nate.co..._1229970122.jpg

Yet, where told that Gingerich's research on whale evolution is probably some of the best evidence there is for evolution.

When Gingerich was interviewed about the, now missing fluke, he said, "we speculated..."

I agree with Kenneth Poppe when he says, regarding the fragmented nature of the evidence for evolution, "I can see why an evolutionist would never point out that about 4 percent of the evidence has to cover about 60 percent of the time. Again, this is their ace in the hole, actually benefiting them because so little information leaves them free to imagine with impunity."

This is why my friend OldEnglishSheepdog speaks of materialism of the gaps. The theory of evolution rests not on the evidence but upon the gaps between the evidence.

I have no idea what you are referring to so if you have the cliff notes or a concise summary with the references, I'll look it up.

But as I said, mainstream origins science operates on top of the philosophical assumption of materialism. It's not the operational science I have a problem with but the underlying assumptions which guide the interpretation.

That didn't answer my question

It's evident you're here to promote evolution and campaign against creationism and you're using the same tired and biased rhetoric that anti-creationist websites offer. It tells me that it's your indoctrination in anti-creationism that drives your posts, not your education in science and not your own experience. Which in turn means you're relying on your education solely to add credulity to the familiar propaganda that we see.

There's no point in wasting further time. I know where to find TalkOrigins and ReasonsToBelieve.

We needed a drumroll for that finish, excellent drama. In any event, you'll see nothing of the sort. I'm not here to promote anything. In fact, you'll see most of my posts are responding to questions, and sometime I'm asking. But they are honest opinions that really only deal with my own personal thoughts. I've have not tried to disuade any creationist from their faith. Furthermore, your charge is false in light of my declaration that I am a Christian who believes in the bible. I just happen to believe that God included evolution in his universe. The fact that you don't like what I believe, or do not want me to have those beliefs is really your problem, not mine.

[Guest]

Knowing Of The Truth But Nodding Off

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

Does Not Lead A Fellow

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

To Worship

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Truth

____________

_________

______

___

First you said science is the best tool, now you say it's the only tool, which is it?

"Actually, its the tool we use because its the best one we have at the time." - Don Fanucci

"Because it is the only tool" - Don Fanucci

Both. One is being statistically accurate in that there may be an unknown method that has yet to be discovered/invented. The other is being practical for the current discussion.

The

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said Genesis 3:1(a-c)

Unknown

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

Method

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

Will Lead To

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16

The Unknown God

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:10-12

____________

_________

______

___

Now if God is going to create the new heaven and earth ex-nihilo and quickly, why did He mess around with such an inefficient and wasteful process such as evolution where this heaven and earth is concerned?

I wouldn't presume to know God's will.

Believe

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:3-6

Believe

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:

and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

Him

But he answered and said, It is written,

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4

____________

_________

______

___

These broad-brush statements are entirely useless and subjective.

Have you ever bothered communicating with these creation scientists, on the big sites? Have you done what any responsible Christian would do and contacted them and told them where they're wrong. You're a scientist and they're scientists. If their science is so blatantly bad, then it would be no problem for you to correct them from a scientific perspective, instead of just hanging around on Christian forums complaining to laymen about them.

Great point. The reason is they have proven time and time again that they are not interested in being corrected. They are only interested in coming up with any kind of data, whether it is manufactured, reinterpreted, wrong, whatever, to fit a preconceived conclusion. Why would anyone waste their time. As an example, intelligent design was taken seriously by scientists. It was fairly mainstream and had its day. It was entirely dis-proven. Did that stop Behe? No. He testified Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and was demolished. A more simpler reason is that again, for the millionth time, science and the supernatural do not mix.

Yes

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, '

and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

Even Science

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,

after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

Is Infected By The Philosophies Of The Pagan

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay:

for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?

or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it,

He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

Idols Idols Everywhere

Little children,

keep yourselves from idols. Amen. 1 John 5:21

Who Can One Trust Who Will Care

And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven,

having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth,

and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him;

for the hour of his judgment is come:

and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. Revelation 14:6-77

____________

_________

______

___

It's evident you're here to promote evolution and campaign against creationism and you're using the same tired and biased rhetoric that anti-creationist websites offer. It tells me that it's your indoctrination in anti-creationism that drives your posts, not your education in science and not your own experience. Which in turn means you're relying on your education solely to add credulity to the familiar propaganda that we see.

There's no point in wasting further time. I know where to find TalkOrigins and ReasonsToBelieve.

We needed a drum roll for that finish, excellent drama. In any event, you'll see nothing of the sort. I'm not here to promote anything. In fact, you'll see most of my posts are responding to questions, and sometime I'm asking. But they are honest opinions that really only deal with my own personal thoughts. I've have not tried to dissuade any creationist from their faith. Furthermore, your charge is false in light of my declaration that I am a Christian who believes in the bible. I just happen to believe that God included evolution in his universe. The fact that you don't like what I believe, or do not want me to have those beliefs is really your problem, not mine.

Well

Add thou not unto his words,

lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:6

God Said It

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,

visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers:

all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17

And Deny It As One May

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made;

and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6

The Book Will Judge The Unbeliever

And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken,

the same shall judge him in the last day. John 12:47-48

By Every Last Word

But I say unto you,

That every idle word that men shall speak,

they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Matthew 12:36

You See

For verily I say unto you,

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

____________

_________

______

___

Believe

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life:

he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: John 11:25

And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

____________

_________

______

___

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?

for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old,

and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

But the heavens and the earth, which are now,

by the same word are kept in store,

reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:3-7

[Guest]

I'm not here to promote anything. In fact, you'll see most of my posts are responding to questions, and sometime I'm asking. But they are honest opinions that really only deal with my own personal thoughts. I've have not tried to dissuade any creationist from their faith. Furthermore, your charge is false in light of my declaration that I am a Christian who believes in the bible. I just happen to believe that God included evolution in his universe.

I have a question in that what is the difference, if any, between a Deist and yourself regarding evolutionary theory? I myself am a panentheist that was raised Christian, so I somewhat consider myself a Christian Panentheist (somewhat borrowing from the theology/philosophy of Marcus Borg), and I feel my philosophy is similar to that of a Deist with a pantheist twist (although I hate God of the gaps and first cause arguments).

Maybe This Will Help

Faith has nothing to do with feelings or with impressions, with improbabilities or with outward experiences. If we desire to couple such things with faith, then we are no longer resting on the Word of God, because faith needs nothing of the kind. Faith rests on the naked Word of God. When we take Him at His Word, the heart is at peace.

Maybe

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

Not

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void,

but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 55:11

See

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. James 1:5-8

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I came up with two tests that would go toward showing that the miracle in Cana would be a very unique, if not miraculous, event. In doing so, showing that the effects of miracles can be subjected to testing. You've pretended not to understand it.

Maybe I wasn't pretending? Brevity and clarity are two important criteria for a dialog. I tend to think as a scientist, which is partial to short, fact-based discussions, not as a philosopher. Perhaps were not a good match.

Don, first of all, I read Luftwaffle's post and nobody could have missed the point. I dare you to quote it and demonstrate at which point you lost track of what he was saying because it was either too lengthy or unclear. Such an insinuation is preposterous. If he lost you, it sure isn't reflecting poorly on his ability to communicate.

Second, I've been all but begging you to produce short, fact-based points and instead you rely on (albeit very bad) philosophy. You're setting the precedent on the nature of the discussion, so don't point the finger elsewhere when you're getting hoisted by your own petard.

The funny thing is (which Luftwaffle already pointed out to you) that short-fact based points are the furthest thing from the conglomeration of rigorous, systematic reconciliation towards the interpretation of evolution. The short facts don't speak for themselves, they’re just the data that everyone is trying to make sense of according to their preconceptions, and if you can't follow simple philosophical lines of reasoning then you're in no position to determine which preconceptions are the best to make sense of the data. Without philosophy there is no interpretation in scientific investigation, and without the proper philosophical approach there's no reason to suppose the preconceptions are correct - quite the contrary.

The truth is, despite your faith based assurances that all the evidence points to evolution, you can't engage in a real meaningful discussion to establish the facts in biology as pointing towards evolution because you have to reconcile the facts to the presupposition that it does, just as everyone else is in their respective disciplines, and for all of our invitations, no one has demonstrated simple, short facts in biology nor in any other discipline that suggest (without first filtering these facts through an evolutionary interpretation) that all roads lead to Darwin.

When the rubber meets the road, we're pointed in a very different direction.

So, if you're admittedly poor at philosophy, stick to the facts please, since the weak and luke-warm philosophy you’ve had to offer is useless in this kitchen.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

By the way, let me ask you something: what do you think is going to happen when Jesus returns? Are we going to sit around in limbo waiting for the new heaven and the new earth to cool down, and evolve some livable conditions? Is God sitting as His desk watching the clock because the hopeful monsters are coming along as quickly as they should?

Now if God is going to create the new heaven and earth ex-nihilo and quickly, why did He mess around with such an inefficient and wasteful process such as evolution where this heaven and earth is concerned?

This here is a great point, upon which I would like to expand.

If evolution is true then Hitchen's complaint about the world stumbling along in death and decay is accurate. The world couldn’t have reflected a greater contrasted to the Biblical description of creation:

Somewhere along the line of death and extinction some proto-human primate population produced something that achieved a level of quantitative variation that constituted a qualitative value gain to establish humanity among primates, and while struggling for survival with its unredeemable animal relatives, fighting off predators and warring for territory with other primates it was endowed with a soul, and divinely imbued with an accompanying conscience to uphold some undefined sense of moral duty that it was somehow supposed to adhere to in this harsh and cut-throat environment which it didn’t live up to, thereby sort of introducing a kind of ‘original sin’ in a sort of way, that didn’t really impact anything in any kind of tangible sense.

How totally dichotomous from the paradise garden in which Adam had a personal relationship with God, saw face to face, not like we do “For now we see through a glass, darkly” (1 Cor. 13:12), in which there was no want of anything, no pain in labour, no rebellion nor sinful nature and its wages of death - and from that world, we rebelled against God from no necessity to do so but simply from ingratitude, scorning His gifts and opting for death and struggle for ourselves and the world.

We’d be now so much closer to the paradise garden, then the proto-humans would have been and they were supposed to have been perfect in an imperfect world characterized by death and suffering and we're all paying because their inevitable failure? Against such a concept it’s no wonder atheists charge God as unfair.

So, if God didn’t bring man into paradise, like He said He did, then it’s not really our fault that there’s death in the world, nor that we grapple with the sinful nature of the flesh. It’s not really our fault that we see through a glass darkly, so what really did God have to pay for? The nature He created and in which He grew us up? How could any of that really be held against us? It’s just the nature that God created.

So if man only sorta, kinda was vaguely ambiguously involved in introducing sin in a metaphoric sense, despite what scripture says, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12), then why didn’t Jesus just have to die a metaphoric death.

He died for real to conquer the real curse of real sin, really introduced by us and really introducing death, so that He eternally removing the power of death for those that believe, and when He comes again (as Luftwaffle pointed out) it’ll be for keeps, reestablishing things as they were.

If you don’t believe in a literal creation account as God said it, then you can’t truly understand who you are in relation to Jesus (a sinner who’s personally responsible for their own death and rebellion against God in a direct way) and what He’s done for you (saved you by freely taking on the sin and its wages of death, that you freely earned). It becomes an issue of the very nature of the grace by which we are saved.

I was an evolutionist and I thought I got it... I really didn’t. You just can’t because evolution just isn’t compatible with the Biblical account, and until you stop compartmentalizing you just can’t see what God has truly done for you.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I wouldn't presume to know God's will.

When you don't presume to know His will when He tells you what it is, it's called disobedience.

In any event, you'll see nothing of the sort. I'm not here to promote anything.

Right, you just jumped into threads you didn't bother to read to make emotionally charged, unsubstantiated generalizations and accusations against young earth creationists during debates on evolution because you like to chitty-chat... nothing more.

Good thing we're all so stupid that we can't see that though, right?

In fact, you'll see most of my posts are responding to questions, and sometime I'm asking.

Just responses and questions... wait, that encompasses the entire length and breadth of the capacity of anyone posting on a forum and therefore makes no recommendations for or against any bias you may be promoting.

Good thing we're all so stupid that we can't see that though, right?

But they are honest opinions

They are honestly nothing more than opinions. They haven't been tainted with facts.

that really only deal with my own personal thoughts.

Finally we agree on something.

Despite your proclamation expressed in your personal thoughts, you truly didn't deal with anything more than your thoughts (such as the oft requested empirical evidence or support of anything that extend beyond your personal thougths).

Personally, I know that people have such thoughts. I was hoping for some meaningful contribution, especially in light of your obvious (unsubstantiated) scorn for other views.

Your personal thoughts here, given their inflammatory and unsubstantiated nature in the context of a debate, are very much the propaganda Luftwaffle was referencing, despite your weak (unsubstantiated) lip service to the contrary.

Good thing we're all so stupid that we can't see that though, right?

I've have not tried to disuade any creationist from their faith.

Of course not, Don. You were just coming here to insult our intelligence (according to your personal opinion of us) without interacting with us on any meaningful way for our edification.

I guess we own you a big 'Thank you' for your input, hey?

Furthermore, your charge is false in light of my declaration that I am a Christian who believes in the bible.

Do you think that this actually follows as refutation to the charge?

I just happen to believe that God included evolution in his universe. The fact that you don't like what I believe, or do not want me to have those beliefs is really your problem, not mine.

Luftwaffle already stated that he was excited to speak to someone with your belief, so this conclusion is simply ignorant of what he expressed.

If you want to know what someone is saying, you have to read what they wrote and accept the plain meaning of what it says... but I guess your trouble with that is why we're having this discussion in the first place.

The problem with your beliefs is that you're making your contempt for the intelligence of those of us with different beliefs clear, even while maintaining them regardless of the evidence.

It's unedifying and boring. We all get this nonsense piped in from every direction all the time. If you have something to contribute that goes above your 'personal opinion' then we're excited to discuss, but it's precisely that you've come to air out your opinion here and belittle anyone who disagrees without dignifying their objections with evidence of any kind that makes your contribution worthless.

[Don Fanucci]

I'm not here to promote anything. In fact, you'll see most of my posts are responding to questions, and sometime I'm asking. But they are honest opinions that really only deal with my own personal thoughts. I've have not tried to disuade any creationist from their faith. Furthermore, your charge is false in light of my declaration that I am a Christian who believes in the bible. I just happen to believe that God included evolution in his universe.

I have a question in that what is the difference, if any, between a Deist and yourself regarding evolutionary theory? I myself am a panentheist that was raised Christian, so I somewhat consider myself a Christian Panentheist (somewhat borrowing from the theology/philosphy of Marcus Borg), and I feel my philosophy is similar to that of a Deist with a pantheist twist (although I hate God of the gaps and first cause arguments).

I think I would sum it up as I believe God is personal and created the universe with us in mind. My beliefs are the same as Christians, though they will insist they are different, I just believe evolution was part of God's plan, whereas fundamentalists do not believe in evolution.