Randy- how do you measure “ONE DAY” before there is both a Sun and an Earth to go around it? And how long is a “day” in G-d time? In Job24:, It seems to indicate there is no time in eternity. In Psalms 90:4 & 2Peter3:8 they say “… that one day is with the Lord is like thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day”. John7:6 seems to also indicate that temporal time is not the same as G-d time. Rev1:8 assures us that G-d is timeless. See also Thess.5:1, and many others. Each one of the 7days could have thus been a billion years- or a millisecond. I’m going for the “billion years” area of that scale.
Meaning I assume that I should single Ben out and suggest that his posts are a ‘fetid torrent of verbiage’ with no reference to facts and no intention of supporting my claims.
No thanks. I think facts have a role to pay in a productive debate.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Satan *
**
One more thing I would like to say Satan. If you think that qouting a few obscure people, or a few obscure passsages from people I know nothing about provides evidence or proves anything, you’re weird. Ok, how about this:
"Today it is perhaps the Darwinian view of nature more than any other that is responsible for the agnostic and skeptical outlook of the twentieth century…(It is) a theory that literally changed the world"
Molecular biologist Michael Denton Evolution: A Theory in Crisis(Bethesda, MD: Adler and Adler,1986)
Did I just “prove” my statement? Come on, we can exchange quotes and books and points and theories all day. It doesn’t prove anything. It’s not worth it.
Danielinthewolvesden I believe in the literal use of the words “One day” here for this reason. At the end of the sixth day, (Gen 1:31) God pronounced everything He had created, including man to be “Very good”. If a day had been equal to (hypothetically) a billion years, then God would have pronounced a billion years of human sin and death, “very good”.
But of course when anyone reads this thread, they must understand that not all Christians have the same beliefs about what should be taken as literal and what should be taken as figurative.
Randy, how do you explain dinosaurs?
**
Provide evidence for this which is not in the Bible.
**
Provide evidence for this which is not in the Bible.
**
Provide evidence for this which is not in the Bible.
**
Provide evidence for this which is not in the Bible.
**
Provide evidence for this which is not in the Bible.
**
Good. Then I will assume it is retracted then.
**
Cites?
**
You are listening to Creation Scientists, not God, and they have proven to lie. You reject evidence which He Himself put here, which means you are denying His glory. You allow this misinformation to be spread like manure, and in fact enjoy this spread of misinformation. All lies. All cheapening Him.
**
Provide evidence for this which is not in the Bible that Satan even exists and that he is as you characterized.
**
Yes, because hopefully in 100 years or so, idiots who blindly follow something because of a faulty interpretation of the Bible will vanish to near-complete dissapearance just like the Geocentrists.
**
Provide some evidence that is actually real.
Oh wait. You CAN’T.
That is why it is ridiculed. Because it’s lies. Lies for God. Lies that you accept as truth.
**
Are you really that uneducated? Are you really that blind?
First of all, they are HARDLY “quiet” about their opposition to Evolution. They are constantly trying to get schools to teach their views, even though it had no real science to back them. They are constantly making noise.
And the beauty is that EVERY SINGLE LIE that a Creation Scientist has said has been completely answered by mainstream science. And they go on record of continuing their lies in spite of this.
But you already admitted that God needs people to lie for Him, so I don’t expect that to bother you at all.
**
You are wrong.
Exhibit A: The Talk Origina Archive.
Wanna actually read facts? Go ahead and e-mail them. The scientists there answer every e-mail from people like you. Every one. See if you can get them to say, “Well gee, I guess you’re right.” Please do. And report back to the class when you get your Nobel Prize for this.
Because anyone who had evidence of Creationism would get a Nobel Prize is it was real.
But it never is.
It’s only lies.
No, it’s frustrating to the majority of people on the planet who have no problem reconciling their religious beliefs with scientific discovery.
You’re the odd-ball here, you know. Not me.
My, the ignorance. It astounds me how people who are so oblivious to the world around them manage to find this board where ignorance is frowned upon.
First of all, Karen Armstrong is a best-selling author who has FORGOT more about Christianity than you will EVER KNOW. Try reading her books, though I warn you: They have big words in them. And not a lot of pictures at all. But I assure you, calling her “obscure” only shows your ignorance.
And Dr. Ross is quite accomplished as a Christian and a scientist. Again, you only show your own ignorance when you question this. Try a search engine, kid.
Second of all, your post has NOTHING TO DO with the point I made. The nuances of actual debate seem to ellude you as well.
See, you made a point in your post. You said that Evolution has turned more people away from Christianity than anything else. A bold statement, I think.
Now provide some evidence for this. Some atheists saying that they rejected Christianity because of evolution would suffice. Let’s see what you can find.
Rather than wait on this, I showed you some evidence from some prominent people that you have it exactly ass-backwards.
Now, I would like to see some backing to your original assertion, please. Show me some evidence that you are right. Because that’s exactly what I did.
You can feel free to reject the evidence, of course. But if you do it on the basis of them being “obscure,” you really need to leave this website because you really have no idea what you are talking about.
One thing that sticks out in this discussion is that at least some Creationists seem to somehow “blame” scientists for identifying and describing natural processes that, in the view of these same people, contradict the Bible. They seem totally unable to accept that one could ask a neutral question.
I would ask Randy, do you believe that God tells his followers nonsense? For that is exactly what you imply in the following:
As for this statement:
I doubt that you will find many scientists who would ridicule anyone who could come up with a testable hypothesis that counters natural selection, which is what I assume Randy means by “Darwins theory”. In fact, many scientists are routinely attempting to identify other mechanisms for the observed changes in living creaturess that occur over time. So far, however, natural selection seems the best fit for the majority of the available data.
Biblical Creation, which relies on miracles, is not a testable hypothesis. Without the ability to test Creation (by, say, producing an entire planet in a day), setting Genesis as a necessary condition of our studies will get us nowhere.
Imagine the dilemma of a scientist who wants to understand more about the fossils that we now identify as the skeletal parts of dinsoaurs. According to Randy and others, the Bible contains everything anyone needs to know concerning life. Yet, if a scientist turns to the Bible in a effort to better understand his fossil, he or she finds…exactly nothing. If one wishes to study further, therefore, one must come up with a hypothesis that explains why this fossil exists, then experiment to determine whether that hypothesis more or less accurately describes the situation. If it does, and if that explanation does not fit with Biblical canon, it seems that Randy is suggesting it must be abandoned. Whether or not he actually takes that absurd position, he clearly states that the scientist is rebuking God, simply by posing a question and attempting to answer it through observation.
Personally, I have a hard time accepting the idea of a God that wants us to believe nonsense, simply as a means of determining whether we are sufficiently obedient to he/she/it. But hey, maybe that’s just me.
Upon rereading your quote when it’s NOT about five in the morning, yes, it does address your point.
I happen to think that the validity of Christians - one of whom actually used Scripture to back him up - saying that this issue has been a stumbling block for people to find Christ is a bit more valid than a cite which was essentially saying “this bookI wrote is so important please buy it.”
I guarantee you that you can find people who have been turned off from Christianity because they don’t see the value in a God who has to be lied for.
I offer myself as exhibit A.
As I said, find me some non-Christians who say, “evolution made me an atheist,” and it might lend some evidence. But when scholars such as Karen Armstrong and scientists such as Dr. Hugh Ross both notice these trends and write about them in very different contexts, you can be sure that they are not doing so blindly.
Okay, Gaspode says he has evidence against “Darwinian Evolution.” Then he posts material based on fungal research.
Why am I having an acute attack of deja vu?
Though to give him credit, he has actually advanced some evidence, a step the “P” poster never, seemingly, got to.
Here would be my comments. Gaspode, I would welcome your reflections on them.
[li]There are quite a few studies, over the years, that show influences on genetic variation not attributable to strict evolution as conceptualized in the typical textbook.[/li][li]Most of the evidence from geology, paleontology, biology in general, cosmology, radioisotope physics, points to a universe in excess of 12 billion years in age, with an earth of 4.6 billion years, having had multicellular life for approximately the past 1 billion years and having had it change according to modern evolutionary theory – based roughly on Darwin’s pioneering work but with much refinement in the 140 years since.[/li][li]Such evidence must be superseded by clear evidence of the actions of an all-powerful god creating the world in six 24-hour days.[/li][li]Such a god, however, would not be one who loved the world enough to give His only-begotten Son that whoever believed in Him might not perish but have everlasting life. He would be a trickster god who plants false evidence in sufficient quantity to confuse all leading students of the subject and those who follow their authority.[/li][li]In short, he would be the Divine Weasel – the term I created here some months ago for this fictive deity.[/li][li]The idea that Genesis 1 is to be interpreted as literal cosmology is based on the demand that the Bible be understood as literally true – one that not even “Biblical literalists” carry to the extreme.[/li][li]As a literary work, Genesis 1 is clearly a myth. This says nothing about its truth, just speaks of its literary genre. As such, it ought to be interpreted as a myth – a simplified easy-to-remember assertion of the idea that it is God Who created everything.[/li]People who insist on giving total certitude to the Bible taken literally are often people who worship the Bible – instead of the God Who gave it. Any good Christian should examine his own heart and mind to see if that is what he or she is in fact doing – because it’s one of the subtlest temptations in the Tempter’s armory, and therefore one of the easiest to fall into.
Now, that last post was quite on target. I can see why you felt you should post it three times…just in case people missed the first two, there’s the third to pick up the slack!
Now. Gaspode, don’t you think there’s a difference between discovering the possible role of prions in evolution and deciding that evolution doesn’t occur?
I felt something similar, after reading that last post of yours…
Wait a minute- the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days, and you know that’s supposed to be taken literally, despite mountains of evidence that the Bible was speaking metaphorically in that instance. But when the Bible says God hated Esau from even before he was born, you’re not sure if it should be taken literally?
Let me ask you a few more questions:
What was the sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed?
How do you know if someone is a false prophet? Do false prophets come from Satan, or from God?
-Ben
jenkinsfan wrote:
… thereby disproving the half of Pascal’s Wager that states, “If you believe in God but God does not exist, you have lost nothing.” 
Funny how you asked a simple question and you got the back-pedalling reply right off the bat. It was as if Randy knew what was coming, and he still played right into your hands.
Thank you, Ben, and please do post the verse this comes from so I can store it for future reference.
Found it, Satan, it’s Romans 9:13.
If life on Earth originated elsewhere, then where did life originate and how? It’s just a clever way of avoiding the question, “How did life originate?”
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jab1 *
**
No, it’s not a way of avoiding the question, it’s a way of offering alternative hypotheses. If the conditions on a prebiotic earth weren’t right for the origin of life, then it’s natural to ask whether conditions elsewhere (in comets, on space dust, on other planets, etc.) were more suitable.
BTW, Satan, don’t forget Malachi 1:2-4 for the Esau thing.
-Ben
Yep, this one’s better. It looks like the Romans verse I mentioned is just Paul quoting from Malachi.