Creationism, Intelligent Design & Evolutionism
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
7:20pm post, 5 Aug"Me confused? Only with your recent coming out of the closet claiming to be a Christian and talking about "my Jesus" and how "my God" is all powerful, all knowing etc etc. I think Jacky is confused by you too. Not sure about buddy despondent though."
Problem? Did I ever deny Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord? What do you expect a Christian to talk about? Horse carts and chicken eggs?
My God IS all powerful and all knowing. Jesus IS the Lord, saviour of all. And He lives. What problem do you have with anyone saying that? -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Me confused? Only with your recent coming out of the closet claiming to be a Christian and talking about "my Jesus" and how "my God" is all powerful, all knowing etc etc. I think Jacky is confused by you too. Not sure about buddy despondent though."
Problem? Did I ever deny Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord? What do you expect a Christian to talk about? Horse carts and chicken eggs?
My God IS all powerful and all knowing. Jesus IS the Lord, saviour of all. And He lives. What problem do you have with anyone saying that?
Are we going to just rehash what we wrote earlier? Fact is, no argument was made. Also, the point wasn't about the truths about God and Jesus, you completely missed the point of my statement. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Are we going to just rehash what we wrote earlier? Fact is, no argument was made. Also, the point wasn't about the truths about God and Jesus, you completely missed the point of my statement.What is the point of your statement?
"Fact is, no argument was made."
Please correct the "fact" that you were referring to above^ after reading and understanding what is argument below.
ar·gu·ment (är
gy
-mnt)
n.1.a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.b. A quarrel; a dispute.c. Archaic A reason or matter for dispute or contention: "sheath'd their swords for lack of argument"(Shakespeare).2.a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.3.a. A summary or short statement of the plot or subject of a literary work.b. A topic; a subject: "You and love are still my argument" (Shakespeare).4. Logic The minor premise in a syllogism.5. Mathematicsa. An independent variable of a function.b. The angle of a complex number measured from the positive horizontal axis.6. Computer Science A value used to evaluate a procedure or subroutine.7. Linguistics In generative grammar, any of various positions occupied by a noun phrase in a sentence. -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
What is the point of your statement?
"Fact is, no argument was made."
Please correct the "fact" that you were referring to above^ after reading and understanding what is argument below.
ar·gu·ment (är
gy-mnt)n.1.a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate.b. A quarrel; a dispute.c. Archaic A reason or matter for dispute or contention: "sheath'd their swords for lack of argument"(Shakespeare).2.a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life.b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.c. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others.3.a. A summary or short statement of the plot or subject of a literary work.b. A topic; a subject: "You and love are still my argument" (Shakespeare).4. Logic The minor premise in a syllogism.5. Mathematicsa. An independent variable of a function.b. The angle of a complex number measured from the positive horizontal axis.6. Computer Science A value used to evaluate a procedure or subroutine.7. Linguistics In generative grammar, any of various positions occupied by a noun phrase in a sentence.More of the usual dictionary antics again? Lame.
I repeat, it wasn't an argument that I was making when I stated that Jacky and possibly despondent and others as well was confused by your sudden out-of-the-closet revelation that you are a Christian who believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of the world, is your Guide, and that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc etc.
I know Bro Joe didn't buy that.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
More of the usual dictionary antics again? Lame.
I repeat, it wasn't an argument that I was making when I stated that Jacky and possibly despondent and others as well was confused by your sudden out-of-the-closet revelation that you are a Christian who believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of the world, is your Guide, and that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc etc.
I know Bro Joe didn't buy that.
"More of the usual dictionary antics again? Lame."
It would be a deliberated choice to argue with the dictionary's definition or keep on playing name calling all over. Btw its definition 2b.
"I repeat, it wasn't an argument that I was making when I stated that Jacky and possibly despondent and others as well was confused by your sudden out-of-the-closet revelation that you are a Christian who believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of the world, is your Guide, and that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc etc.
I know Bro Joe didn't buy that."
Problem? I don't wear Christianity like a badge, its in me that I cannot deny. Take me as I am, or leave it. Wanna dispute on what is said, bring it on. I'm not concerned of your juvenile popularity propaganda.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"More of the usual dictionary antics again? Lame."
It would be a deliberated choice to argue with the dictionary's definition or keep on playing name calling all over. Btw its definition 2b.
"I repeat, it wasn't an argument that I was making when I stated that Jacky and possibly despondent and others as well was confused by your sudden out-of-the-closet revelation that you are a Christian who believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for the sins of the world, is your Guide, and that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc etc.
I know Bro Joe didn't buy that."
Problem? I don't wear Christianity like a badge, its in me that I cannot deny. Take me as I am, or leave it. Wanna dispute on what is said, bring it on. I'm not concerned of your juvenile popularity propaganda.
Oh I see, so all these while you were withholding giving the impression you were a Christian, but now you are going to afffirm that you believe at least in the following:
1. God exists and is the Creator of the universe.
2. Jesus is God and the Second Person of the Triune Godhead
3. Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world.
4. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day and ascended to heaven.
5. Jesus is coming back again.
6. The Bible is the inspired Word of God
Last but not least, that atheism is false.
So you telling me that you are checking all the above as TRUE?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Oh I see, so all these while you were withholding giving the impression you were a Christian, but now you are going to afffirm that you believe at least in the following:
1. God exists and is the Creator of the universe.
2. Jesus is God and the Second Person of the Triune Godhead
3. Jesus died on the cross for the sins of the whole world.
4. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day and ascended to heaven.
5. Jesus is coming back again.
6. The Bible is the inspired Word of God
Last but not least, that atheism is false.
So you telling me that you are checking all the above as TRUE?
I refuse to subject myself to this affirmation. I did not withhold anything.
Btw... I believe even Satan would agree with your above affirmation 1~7... -
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
I refuse to subject myself to this affirmation. I did not withhold anything.
Btw... I believe even Satan would agree with your above affirmation 1~7...Avoiding and evading again. Tsk tsk
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Avoiding and evading again. Tsk tsk
Which part of "I refuse to subject myself to this affirmation" did you not understand?
-
.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Which part of "I refuse to subject myself to this affirmation" did you not understand?
*face/palm* ~shake head~ -
Anyone seen the recent Prometheus movie? There's a review here http://creation.com/prometheus-review and it seems that blockbuster movies are asking blockbuster questions about life's origins.
-
A Christian with a PhD in Physics wrote to express his displeasure that there are believers who insist on a young earth view. Snippets of his letter included:
"I am a PhD physicist and also a committed Christian. Having read your article I am shocked at the effort that has gone into defending what I consider to be a quite unreasonable position. Perhaps you have seen the Wikepedia website that discusses the age of the earth? There you will see that the earth has been aged by a large number of techniques, and the accuracy of the result (4.54 billion years) has been established to an uncertainty of 1%. ...
...The assertion that the earth can be reliably dated at 6000 years by biblical genealogy alone, and in the face of modern science, is surely rather childish, and it undermines the authority of the same folks who are trying to spread the gospel of Christ....
...We need to have a grown up view of the Bible and not to try to make God small enough to fit into a box of our own making. We must accept the conclusions of science that have come from the enquiring minds that God created within us.... "
A good response by Don Batten can be read here http://creation.com/biblical-earth-age-objection
-
I find this article "Why I Believe in 24-Hours Day" very useful. Excepts below:
This plain-language (of 6 literal normal 24-Hrs Day) reading assumes recent creation, not one where days “stand for” or “allow” or “are indifferent to” long ages of time. A recent Protestant scholar, James R. Mook, summarizes this way:
"A natural reading of the Church fathers shows that though they held diverse views on the days of creation, and correctly gave priority to the theological meaning of the creation, they definitely asserted that the earth was created suddenly and in less than 6,000 years before their time. They left no room for the ‘old earth’ views promoted by Ross and other moderns."
Orthodox scholar, Seraphim Rose (1932–1982), who openly disdains conservative Protestant interpretation of Scripture, nevertheless writes,
"Some rather naive “theologians” try to say that the Six Days of Creation can be indefinitely long periods, that they can correspond to the different geological strata. This, of course, is nonsense because the geological strata do not have six easily identifiable layers, or five or four or anything of the sort. There are many, many layers, and they do not correspond at all to the Six Days of Creation. So that is a very weak accommodation. As a matter of fact—even though it looks as though it might be terribly fundamentalistic to say it—the Holy Fathers do say that those Days were twenty-four hours long. St. Ephraim the Syrian even divides them into two periods, twelve hours each. St. Basil the Great says that, in the book of Genesis, the First Day is called not the “first day” but “one day” because that is the one day by which God measured out the entire rest of the creation; that is, this First Day, which he says was twenty-four hours long, is exactly the same day which is repeated in the rest of creation. If you think about it, there is nothing particularly difficult in that idea, since the creation of God is something totally outside our present knowledge. The accommodation of days to epochs does not make any sense; you cannot fit them together. Therefore, why do you need to have a day that is a thousand or a million years long? The Holy Fathers say again with one voice that the creative acts of God are instantaneous. St. Basil the Great, St. Ambrose the Great, St. Ephraim and many others say that, when God creates, He says the word and it is, faster than thought. There are many Patristic quotations about this, but we will not go into them here. None of the Holy Fathers say that the creation was slow."
Even very recently, Albert Mohler states,
"What we have here in Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a sequential pattern of creation, a straightforward plan, a direct reading of the text would indicate to us seven 24-hour days, six 24-hour days of creative activity and a final day of divine rest. This was the untroubled consensus of the Christian church until early in the 19th century. It was not absolutely unanimous. It was not always without controversy. But it was the overwhelming, untroubled consensus of the church, until the dawn of the 19th century."
Victorinus (4th century) says,
"Even such is the rapidity of that creation, and which is called Genesis. God produced that entire mass for the adornment of His majesty in six days; on the seventh to which He consecrated it. . . . In the beginning God made the light, and divided it in the exact measure of twelve hours by day and by night. . . . The day, as I have above related, is divided into two parts by the the number twelve—by the twelve hours of day and night."
Ephrem the Syrian (306–373), who knew Hebrew, opines,
"Although the light and the clouds were created in the twinkling of an eye, still both the day and the night of the First Day were each completed in twelve hours."
Ambrose (337[340]–397) teaches,
"Scripture established a law that twenty-four hours, including both day and night, should be given the name of day only, as if one were to say the length of one day is twenty-four hours in extent. . . . The nights in this reckoning are considered to be component parts of the days that are counted. Therefore, just as there is a single revolution of time, so there is but one day. Thus were created the evening and the morning. Scripture means the space of a day and a night, and afterwards no more says day and night, but calls them both under the name of the more important: a custom which you will find throughout Scripture"
The Venerable Bede (673–735) says,
"At this point one day is completed, namely, twenty-four hours."
It is hard to avoid the conclusion of Robert L. Dabney (1820–1898) who teaches,
"The narrative seems historical and not symbolical; and hence the strong initial presumption is, that all its parts are to be taken in their obvious sense. . . . The sacred writer seems to shut us up to the literal interpretation by describing the day as composed of its natural parts, ‘morning and evening.’ Is the attempt made to break the force of this, by reminding us that the ‘evening and the morning’ do not make up the whole of the civic day of twenty-four hours; and that the words are different from those just before, and commonly afterwards employed to denote the ‘day’ and the ‘night,’ which together make up the natural day? We reply: it is true, morning and evening do not literally fill the twenty-four hours. But these epochs mark the beginnings of the two seasons, day and night, which do fill the twenty-four hours. And it is hard to see what a writer can mean, by naming evening and morning as making a first, or a second ‘day’; except that he meant us to understand that time which includes just one of each of these successive epochs:--one beginning of night, and one beginning of day. These gentlemen cannot construe the expression at all. The plain reader has no trouble with it. When we have had one evening and one morning, we know we have just one civic day; for the intervening hours have made just that time. . . . It is freely admitted that the word day is often used in the Greek Scriptures as well as the Hebrew (as in our common speech) for an epoch, a season, a time. But yet, this use is confessedly derivative. The natural day is its literal and primary meaning. Now, it is apprehended that in construing any document, while we are ready to adopt, at the demand of the context, the derived or tropical meaning, we revert to the primary one, when no such demand exists in the context."
To bring the debate down to the modern day, Gerhard F. Hasel (1935–1994) concludes,
"This paper investigated the meaning of creation “days.” It has considered key arguments in favor of a figurative, non-literal meaning of the creation “days.” . . . The cumulative evidence, based on comparative, literary, linguistic and other considerations, converges on every level, leading to the singular conclusion that the designation yom, “day,” in Genesis 1 means consistently a literal 24-hour day."
-
There is an interesting commentary on creationism and evolutionism here
http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC120928-0000055/Creationism-still-part-of-the-evolution-debate
-
-
The latest issue of New Scientist says that "In the context of known physics,.. whatever way you look at it, the universe cannot have existed forever so must have had a beginning. But how did it begin?"
The fact that the universe has a beginning logically implies a cause which is consistent with theism.
-
The Woodlands Regional Library would be holding a Darwin Day 2013 event today in the afternoon. Interestingly it is hosted by the Humanist society. http://www.humanist.org.sg/darwinday/2013
If their article in Darwin Day 2012 means anything, it is that there is an agenda to tell people that evolution has made religion nothing more but a superstitious fad that also evolved to help humans cope and survive. Here's what they conclude, "The father of modern evolutionary biology is a figure worth commemorating. His great work, “On the Origins of Species” has not only revolutionized modern biological sciences but also the outlook of many people worldwide, allowing them to understand how life could arise elegantly, without having the need to resort to unsatisfactory supernatural explanation of creation or divinity."
As you can see, evolution is not just science, it is admittedly a WORLDVIEW that says there is no God who made us and gave us purpose and morality. Nature made itself, and made us. Of course, it must be stated too that humanism is a religion itself. It makes metaphysical claims about ultimate reality and morality as you can see from their Constitution on the website. One can probably also say that their religion is SCIENTISM. See also http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/humanism.shtml