The Barbarian Posted December 2, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,082 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 974 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Online Share Posted December 2, 2019 Barbarian observes: It's been directly observed. You've been shown many examples. " 17 minutes ago, omega2xx said: No I haven't. I have just been shown the usual evo rhetoric that you have accepted by faith alone. Everyone's seen them here. There's no point in denying the fact. And as your fellow creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise admits, the many transitional forms in the fossil record are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. 20 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Do you really not understand that what people believe is not evidence? But the evidence Dr. Wise cites is very good evidence, as he admits. 21 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Do you really not understand that if something is theory, that means it has not been proved? You've been misled. A theory is an idea that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. You're thinking of a hypothesis, not theory. Would you like to learn more about this? 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. 24 minutes ago, omega2xx said: You still haven't explained how salamanders remaining salamander in what is called speciation, support evolution. You haven't because you can't. I'm not the only one who has shown you your error there. Do you think no one remembers? Would you like to see it again? 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 1 minute ago, The Barbarian said: 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. Many prominent evolutionists, including Fred Hoyle. have given up on the BB THEORY. If something is not testable. it isn't proved and can't be. How did this person know God did it? The Bible Doesn't even hint at such a silly idea. Why would God create a very good universe then make it explode. That idea come right out of lala land. It should start with "once up a time" and end with "and they all live happily ever after." Not only do you not understand science, you don't understand the Bible The over whelming problem is for evolutionist who have absolutely no evidence for anything evolution preaches. 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: 5,082 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 974 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Online Share Posted December 2, 2019 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: Many prominent evolutionists, including Fred Hoyle. have given up on the BB THEORY. Hoyle, being an atheist, detested the Big Bang theory, because it suggested a beginning for the universe. He may also have been offended that a Christian proposed it. Whatever the reason, Hoyle lost the argument; today the Big Bang has been repeatedly verified by new information. 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: How did this person know God did it? His Christian faith. You can't put that in a scientific paper, since science depends on evidence, not faith. But he was quite aware that God did it. 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: Why would God create a very good universe then make it explode. It wasn't an explosion; it was an expansion. "Big Bang" was Hoyle's attempt to make fun of the idea. So we start with a universe completely chaotic and unformed, and then God says "let there be light" and the rest ensues. This is why Hoyle was unhappy about it. A Christian proposed the theory, which is consistent with Christian belief. And you sided with the atheist. Not only do you not understand science, you don't understand the Bible But it really has nothing to do with evolution, which you have now learned, is being directly observed. 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 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Barbarian said: Barbarian observes: It's been directly observed. You've been shown many examples. " Everyone's seen them here. There's no point in denying the fact. And as your fellow creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise admits, the many transitional forms in the fossil record are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory. But the evidence Dr. Wise cites is very good evidence, as he admits." Talk is cheap, post the evidence. "You've been misled. A theory is an idea that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. You're thinking of a hypothesis, not theory. Would you like to learn more about this?" You don't understand science, you don't understand the Bible and now you have revealed you don't understand "theory." Once a theory has been proved,it becomes a law-- Quote 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. "I'm not the only one who has shown you your error there. Do you think no one remembers? Would you like to see it again?" The only way you can show my errors is to provide the evidence. What you have accepted by faith alone by Darwin;'s evangelists, is not evidence. All you can say is "many small changes, over long periods of time. A THEORY with no supporting evidence. Do you really not know that time does not change proven genetic LAWS? If you are not afraid the truth about the fossil record will destroy your fantasy, goggle "problems with the fossil record" and see what even good evolutionists say. You still haven't explained how salamanders remaining salamanders in what is called speciation, support evolution. You haven't because you can't. Edited December 2, 2019 by omega2xx 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: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: "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). Yes, so the "image of God" is beyond the physical plane of existence. That's precisely why man as an ape is NOT blasphemy. Our image of God is not based on our physical characteristics. 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 4 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: Hoyle, being an atheist, detested the Big Bang theory, because it suggested a beginning for the universe. He may also have been offended that a Christian proposed it. Whatever the reason, Hoyle lost the argument; today the Big Bang has been repeatedly verified by new information." Being an atheist is irrelevant. He hated it because it couldn't be proved and was being used to support something he believed in---evolution. Hoyle is not the only evolutionist questioning the BB. I am tired of you making dogmatic statements but NEVER providing the evidence. In the future, no evidence, no response. "His Christian faith. You can't put that in a scientific paper, since science depends on evidence, not faith. But he was quite aware that God did it." Answer my question---How did he know God did it? There is no evidence supporting such an idea in God's inspired word. If he wants to BELIEVE God did it that way, that is his business, but is is not evidence. 4 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: It wasn't an explosion; it was an expansion. " You just make up stuff to try make it fit your unscientific BELIEF system. "Bang" means an explosion. If you want to start a new theory, make it the BE. "Big Bang" was Hoyle's attempt to make fun of the idea. So we start with a universe completely chaotic and unformed, and then God says "let there be light" and the rest ensues." You continue to make up stuff and continue to not provide any evidence. The universe did not start out chaotic. If you understood the Bible and that is our only true source of how the universe came into being, you would know that. "This is why Hoyle was unhappy about it. A Christian proposed the theory, which is consistent with Christian belief. And you sided with the atheist. Not only do you not understand science, you don't understand the Bible. You don't seem to understand that Atheist can become well qualified in science and Hoyle is considered a good scientist, and has a far better reputation in it than you do. "But it really has nothing to do with evolution, which you have now learned, is being directly observed." The only think I have learned from you is that you can't prove even one thing the TOE preaches. Since you can't prove anything, you have to resort to making up things you hope will support you faith in Darwin, who wasn't even a scientists. Some people never learn. 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 6 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Yes, so the "image of God" is beyond the physical plane of existence. That's precisely why man as an ape is NOT blasphemy. Our image of God is not based on our physical characteristics. But our physical appearance, that which God formed from dust, and can be seen, is. So your idea that man is an ape, means God is an ape, which is blasphemy. 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: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, omega2xx said: So your idea that man is an ape, means God is an ape I don’t understand your reasoning. Biologically, man is an ape, but we are much more than our biology. Our “image of God” is obviously not based on biology. 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: 0.99 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, one.opinion said: I completely agree that this is true in an unsaved person's spiritual existence. We definitively agree on this. 3 hours ago, one.opinion said: 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". I understand what you are getting at here, but I am not so sure that I agree with it. You say the scientific community is anti-God, but not anti-Christian. Christians are the physical representatives of God on earth. There are certainly no shortage of scriptures that point to this fact and the concept itself is present basically throughout the new testament, particularly from towards the end of Christ's Ministry, into acts, and through the epistles. Perhaps the concept itself could even be said to crescendo in the Book of Revelation when we see massive numbers of Christians being martyred on account of their faith. The world itself, the non-Christian world, is complicit with many seemingly being active participants. I might even consider making an argument that any generation of non-Christians would be susceptible to participation in such a thing, given the circumstances and opportunity (though that argument would be based on an inductive inference and I certainly would not do so dogmatically). My ultimate point is that I'm not sure how easy it is to differentiate the spiritual state of the nonbeliever on a personal level (at enmity with God and, by extension, those who belong to Him) and their attitude towards God and his followers. I certainly would not make the argument that all nonbelievers harbor and unquenchable, burning hatred for Christians that they carry with them at all times, just that their spiritual state is likely to have a less than trivial effect on their personal outlook, particularly over time and even more particularly in what (I think anyone would agree) is a supercharged political atmosphere in our country at this time. 3 hours ago, one.opinion said: Even those of us that are saved must admit to our attitudes, thoughts, and actions that certainly qualify as "anti-God" periodically. I would not disagree (God hates all sin). However, I think this ultimately goes toward my point. Whatever one defines as "anti-God" - at the end of the day the most simple definition is "sin," but I would not reduce the context of this conversation down to that concept alone. My point can probably be best demonstrated by something Paul says when instructing us to put on the armor of God (and why it's important to do so!). Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against... In other words, Christians are in a state of struggle against these influences - the flesh, yes, but these things influence the flesh. Nonbelievers have zero defense. In short, they are at their mercy and under their influence in a total sort of way. No matter what our outward interactions are with them, we are apart from them and unless they become one of us, we always will be. Do we stumble? Yes. God will pick us up when we fall. You point out that Christians must admit to our shortcomings and we certainly should. That is an important part of our witness, even, and our witness is incredibly important. However, we also need to be realistic about the state of the nonbeliever and understand that they need Christ - that until they are reconciled to God through Christ, they are at enmity with Him (and because of this, to one degree or another, with us). Edited December 2, 2019 by Steve_S Grammar. 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: 2.09 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 2, 2019 9 minutes ago, Steve_S said: You say the scientific community is anti-God, but not anti-Christian. No, I say that most individuals in the scientific community are not anti-Christian. We are all anti-God prior to our acceptance of His atonement and new life. The scientific community is not any more (or any less) anti-God than a Tuesday night bowling league. It is often erroneously believed and/or implied that the scientific community accepts evolution because it is anti-Christian. In my experience, this has not been the case. Everything else you posted - I agree with that. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts