The Barbarian Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,049 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 10 hours ago, omega2xx said: You can name YEC till the cows come home, but that is not evidence the other things they believe are right. I can name just a many, that disagree with them and with you who are also Phd's. I am not basically a YEC. The Bible doesn't give the age of the earth, so, for me it is irrelevant. The only important question is how did it get here. It condensed from the shockwaves and debris of a supernova explosion. How do we know that? Because we wouldn't be here if that wasn't the case. You see, elements up to carbon are formed in normal stars. The others are formed in the incredible heat and pressure of a supernova. We are made of the remains of a star that exploded. 10 hours ago, omega2xx said: "small changes over many years" is just evo rhetoric. It can't be proved. It's been directly observed. You've been shown many examples. And as your fellow creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise admits, the many transitional forms in the fossil record are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." 10 hours ago, omega2xx said: You can parrot all of the usual, unproved, evo rhetoric, but until you can explain how a specie remaining the exact same species, you are just blowing smoke. I'm just showing you the evidence. As you learned, evolution also works within species, and they also change over time. And as your fellow creationists admit, new species evolve from time to time. No point in denying the fact. Instead of denying it, you'd be better off, finding a way to reconcile your beliefs with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 On 11/30/2019 at 6:11 PM, one.opinion said: That is a misconception. The scientific community, outside of a few highly vocal individuals, is not "anti-God". The scientific community, in my opinion, relies so heavily on methodological naturalism (the self-limiting of science to physical explanations) that it often spills over into philosophical naturalism (the belief that the only reality is the physical one), but the proportion of individuals that are "anti-God" is fairly small, in my experience. Not really wanting to participate in the part of this debate about the age of the earth, but in perusing this thread (your typical late night, not much else to do sort of perusing) this post jumped out at me, mainly because, from a scriptural perspective, not being a follower of Christ basically puts a person automatically at enmity with God. In other words, until a person is reconciled to God through faith in Christ, they are most definitively, in a very real sense, anti-God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael37 Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Servant Followers: 21 Topic Count: 241 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 6,934 Content Per Day: 3.27 Reputation: 4,863 Days Won: 2 Joined: 07/05/2018 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/23/1954 Share Posted December 2, 2019 4 hours ago, Steve_S said: Not really wanting to participate in the part of this debate about the age of the earth, but in perusing this thread (your typical late night, not much else to do sort of perusing) this post jumped out at me, mainly because, from a scriptural perspective, not being a follower of Christ basically puts a person automatically at enmity with God. In other words, until a person is reconciled to God through faith in Christ, they are most definitively, in a very real sense, anti-God. Spot on. If a person or movement is fixed on believing that the natural world of energy and matter is all there is then understanding who God is and what He is capable of is beyond their comprehension. 1Co 2:14 (14) But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Call it naturalism, natural history, empiricism, philosophical or dialectic materialism...it's all anti-God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 8 hours ago, Steve_S said: Not really wanting to participate in the part of this debate about the age of the earth, but in perusing this thread (your typical late night, not much else to do sort of perusing) this post jumped out at me, mainly because, from a scriptural perspective, not being a follower of Christ basically puts a person automatically at enmity with God. In other words, until a person is reconciled to God through faith in Christ, they are most definitively, in a very real sense, anti-God. 3 hours ago, Michael37 said: 1Co 2:14 (14) But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. I completely agree that this is true in an unsaved person's spiritual existence. However, this is out of context. The topic of discussion was the claim that the scientific community is anti-Christian, perhaps a better phrasing than "anti-God". Even those of us that are saved must admit to our attitudes, thoughts, and actions that certainly qualify as "anti-God" periodically. While the scientific community tends to focus so much and physical reality that divine action is not carefully considered, it is my perception that the scientific community, with some notable exceptions like Dawkins, is not hostile to Christianity. 4 hours ago, Michael37 said: Spot on. If a person or movement is fixed on believing that the natural world of energy and matter is all there is then understanding who God is and what He is capable of is beyond their comprehension. Absolutely, I mentioned in a post somewhere around the thread that caught Steve's attention that scientists are frequently so focused on methodological naturalism that philosophical naturalism often insinuates itself into a personal philosophy without careful consideration. I see it frequently, and I find it very sad. I am often engaged in discussions that help bring attention to this error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,049 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 1 minute ago, one.opinion said: Absolutely, I mentioned in a post somewhere around the thread that caught Steve's attention that scientists are frequently so focused on methodological naturalism that philosophical naturalism often insinuates itself into a personal philosophy without careful consideration. I see it frequently, and I find it very sad. I am often engaged in discussions that help bring attention to this error. It is a necessary part of their work, just as a plumber doesn't consider the possibility that God used supernovae to make copper for pipes. Science and plumbing can't consider God, but scientists and plumbers can. If anyone finds this puzzling, that's what is keeping them from the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hruodperht Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Members Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 16 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 12 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/24/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 I would find that thinking G-d used evolution to "make man" would be limiting Him in His power and ability. After all, if G-d is almighty (as the Scriptures describe Him to be), they why should He constrain Himself to use a means of making anything (let alone man) that required Death had to be present even before Death came to this world via sin? When He created everything, G-d called it "good" and "very good" in the Scriptures, with no mention of other things being "not so good". This would mean then that as these creatures "evolved", the former would no longer be present, lest things that were "not as good" be mentioned. As for the making of man, would G-d confer His divine image to what had once been an ape (if evolution were true)? I find that to be a bit insulting to G-d, given that at no time do the Scriptures ever liken Him to one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 10 hours ago, The Barbarian said: It condensed from the shockwaves and debris of a supernova explosion. " Let me explain your problem. You start with matter and energy already in place. Where did he matter and energy originate? " How do we know that? Because we wouldn't be here if that wasn't the case. You see, elements up to carbon are formed in normal stars. The others are formed in the incredible heat and pressure of a supernova. We are made of the remains of a star that exploded." You still have the same problem---where did the starts and carbon originate? Where did the energy that caused the expolosion originate? 10 hours ago, The Barbarian said: "It's been directly observed. You've been shown many examples. " No I haven't. I have just been shown the usual evo rhetoric that you have accepted by faith alone. Thanks for confirming that you don't have a clue as to what constitutes verifiable evidence. "And as your fellow creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise admits, the many transitional forms in the fossil record are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Do you really not understand that what people believe is not evidence? Do you really not understand that if something is theory, that means it has not been proved? I can name creation scientist more qualified than Wise, who reject what you have accepted by faith alone. "I'm just showing you the evidence. As you learned, evolution also works within species, and they also change over time. And as your fellow creationists admit, new species evolve from time to time. No point in denying the fact." No point in accepting by faith alone that facts have supporting evidence. All you have is the usual evo talking points. "Instead of denying it, you'd be better off, finding a way to reconcile your beliefs with reality." Instead of accepting what someone says by faith alone, it would benefit you greatly if you would actually do some study on the subject. You could also help yourself by understanding what constitutes verifiable evidence. You still haven't explained how salamanders remaining salamander in what is called speciation, support evolution. You haven't because you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, Hruodperht said: I would find that thinking G-d used evolution to "make man" would be limiting Him in His power and ability. I disagree. I believe God used evolution to create for His own reasons, not because he simply didn't have the ability to create through other means. My respect for His creative work has been increased as I learned about the intricacies of evolution. Not only does He have the power to bring everything into being, I believe He did it with beautiful creativity and complexity that I didn't appreciate as a young earth creationist. 11 minutes ago, Hruodperht said: Death had to be present even before Death came to this world via sin? I believe it is consistent with the entirety of the Bible that Adam's sin brought spiritual death, not physical death. The Bible does not clearly teach that physical death did not exist before this sin. 3 minutes ago, Hruodperht said: As for the making of man, would G-d confer His divine image to what had once been an ape (if evolution were true)? I find that to be a bit insulting to G-d, given that at no time do the Scriptures ever liken Him to one! Biologically we are still apes, and yet God humbled Himself to take human form. The Bible describes God as spirit, so it seems quite reasonable that the "image of God" would be on a spiritual level, rather than physical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,049 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 14 minutes ago, omega2xx said: You still have the same problem---where did the starts and carbon originate? Where did the energy that caused the expolosion originate? It wasn't an explosion, and the physicist who first documented the Big Bang thought that God did it. He couldn't put that in the theory, because it's not testable. But he knew it was God. So that's no problem for a Christian (the physicist was a Christian) but it's an overwhelming problem for creationism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 10 minutes ago, one.opinion said: I disagree. I believe God used evolution to create for His own reasons, not because he simply didn't have the ability to create through other means. My respect for His creative work has been increased as I learned about the intricacies of evolution. Not only does He have the power to bring everything into being, I believe He did it with beautiful creativity and complexity that I didn't appreciate as a young earth creationist. I believe it is consistent with the entirety of the Bible that Adam's sin brought spiritual death, not physical death. The Bible does not clearly teach that physical death did not exist before this sin. Biologically we are still apes, and yet God humbled Himself to take human form. The Bible describes God as spirit, so it seems quite reasonable that the "image of God" would be on a spiritual level, rather than physical. "Image" refers to the invisible traits God gave man---a mind, love, compassion, etc. Notice in Gen 1:27 "likeness" is omitted. Mans likeness to God,that which is visible, was not created, but formed(Gen 2:7). If man is an ape, then God is an ape. Man can talk, apes cant' That IMO that is blasphemy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts