Posted on 04/11/2013 7:38:52 AM PDT by kimtom
"..A common quibble laid at the feet of the creationist is that he/she is not qualified to speak about scientific matters relating to the creation/evolution controversy..."
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth...";
Evilutionist will reject your evidence, but demand you except their “interpretation” of it.
Keep the Faith!!
“...you are not qualified to judge.”
Oh???
As you say - even the devil can quote scripture - you’ve been bending the word to your way. I think our lord and savior speaks for himself just fine. You are not qualified - and never will be.
Yes, and the scriptures teach us how to discern Good from Evil.
Qualified??? now are you judging???
Allmendream.....
“Why do you say it is sucking someone in? Shouldn’t they be proud of their arguments and be willing and able to discuss them?”
You suck them in with a false premise..... that IF a mouse evolved into a rat it can’t be considered micro.... blah, blah, blah.
“And your revisionist history is amusing. Do you often “use” Phd level Biologists? Do they object to you using them in such a manner?”
The Phd level scientists that responded to you are both Christian friends that I’ve gotten to know in the Creation Science movement. There’s nothing revisionist about it. I’ll be glad to post the whole string if you’d like.
“Do you also think the last couple Popes were only professing belief in Jesus Christ?”
What a Pope does or doesn’t believe or does or doesn’t say is of no consequence to me.... and by the way, I’ve not heard the Pope mock like you do.
“Do you hold that acceptance of the theory of biological evolution is incompatible with belief in Jesus the Christ?”
Read Mark 10:6 for my answer.
Here’s a few more verses for you. If the shoe fits......
GALATIANS 6:6-7
6 Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches.
7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
1 CORINTHIANS 8:12
12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.
ROMANS 16:17
17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. 18 For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.
Brilliant only in your childishness. And indeed - you prove yourself even less qualified by the moment. I don’t have to judge you - I only have to recognize those who will misuse the word to their own ends. The lord has already proclaimed false believers like you would come in the end days to sew disunity. Might I suggest a refresher in Matthew?
“...God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap....”
Bravo!!!
Waiver not in your Faith, but hold that which is Dear!!
So we are reduced to insults ?
“Brilliant”, Thank You!!
Childish? well senseless arguments over the value of evolution, may seem childish.....
Qualified?? for what?? make your self clear.
False Believers?? in evolution??
uh, Yes I confess, I do not believe in evolution.
It is EVIL, and from the Father of Lies!!!
Misused words??? which?
If I have, I will Repent!!!
So no rodent “kind” then. Even species as close as a mouse and a rat had to have separate accommodations on the Ark.
How did they all fit?
Sorry if bringing up the Pope disturbs you. I will try to refrain from mocking you. Wouldn’t want to hurt your little feelings. Do you need a participation trophy?
***Sorry if bringing up the Pope disturbs you. I will try to refrain from mocking you. Wouldn’t want to hurt your little feelings. Do you need a participation trophy?***
You just can’t help it can you Allmendream?
You’re like a third grader.... what’s next, are you going to call me a poopooface?
***So no rodent “kind” then. Even species as close as a mouse and a rat had to have separate accommodations on the Ark. How did they all fit?***
Volumes have been written about the Ark. My suggestion is that you get the book: “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study” or you could go to creation.com and find out all you want to know.... but you won’t do that will you, Allmendream... you don’t want to threaten your worldview now do you.
Here’s all I need to know about Noah’s Ark:
LUKE 17:22-27
22 Then He said to the disciples, “The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. 23 And they will say to you, ‘Look here!’ or ‘Look there!’ Do not go after them or follow them. 24 For as the lightning that flashes out of one part under heaven shines to the other part under heaven, so also the Son of Man will be in His day. 25 But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.”
Those are the words of Jesus Christ.... who you claim to be your Lord and Savior... and he validated the historicity of Noah and the flood in this passage.
Here’s my question, Allmendream: why would you have a liar as your Lord and Savior?
As I said, a claim of believing in Jesus, but a rejection of believing Jesus.
Jesus authenticated the writings of Moses in John 5:45-47, and Moses reiterated in Exodus that creation was a 6 day event. Not “age” days, because the context was that of the Sabbath, which is not an age, but a normal day.
Sorry.
Do you consider it mockery to say that someone is only claiming to be a Christian because they don’t believe the same as you?
Do you consider it mockery to say their Lord and Savior is a liar?
Do you consider that Jesus spoke and taught via parable?
Do you think anyone who doesn’t accept the Noah story as exactly literal (such as many millions of Christians) are making a liar of Jesus, and are not really Christians?
But then again it must be easy for you to claim you are a Christian and make a liar of the Lord by claiming that HE insists that to accept HIM you must believe many idiotic and impossible things.
Personally, I'm only concerned with the higher level problems with evolutionary explanations for the origin and development of life on earth, because I was told by scientists that this was a scientifically closed question, when it wasn't, and isn't.
Scientists can speculate all they want, as long as their speculation is labeled as such.
It's clear to me that militant atheists, from Darwin's time on, have used evolutionary theory to "debunk" the Bible or Christianity. That isn't science, and Christians, such as myself, resent it.
The means by which human life developed is an age-old question. St. Augustine postulated something similar to microevolution, while St. Thomas speculated that the "days" mentioned in Scripture corresponded to various "ages" of Creation.
These are interesting questions, but of little practical significance. If we believe that God created the natural world from nothing, and that He Created the human race in whatever way He chose fit, what difference does it make to us now?
Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with investigating the origins of life or human life. The only thing I object to, in principle, is scientists telling us that they have certain knowledge regarding the big questions, i.e., "evolution is an indisputable fact," when the empirical evidence doesn't support such a position.
I don't like being lied to.
One thing the fossil record clearly does NOT show is that all species existed contemporaneously.
I understand that much.
So how is it that you accept the evidence of their long existence in the past without major change (say in three toed horses), but reject the evidence that those horses with toes didn’t live contemporaneously with horses with hooves?
I haven't studied horse toes, but I know that there is a scientific consensus that geological formations roughly correspond to various eras, along with the fossils contained therein, i.e., the Cambrian explosion.
*******************************************************
The other objection to I have to the modern scientific method is scientists engaging in metaphysics, while condemning Christians for doing so.
For example, many scientists condemn attempts to quantify "intelligent design," as with, for example, the theory of "irreducible complexity," while engaging in metaphysics themselves, i.e., rejecting divine intervention a priori, while, ironically, supporting research into artificial intelligence.
You’re growing tiresome, Allmendream.
Here are your answers:
***Do you consider it mockery to say that someone is only claiming to be a Christian because they don’t believe the same as you?***
Christ.... the Creator and Savior.... wanted comity in the body of Christ. You actively mock Christians who do not believe the same as you. You spit on Christ when you do that. I can certainly have a spirited discussion with Christians who don’t believe doctrinally the same as me. You are incapable of a spirited discussion without ad hominem attacks and juvenile taunting.
***Do you consider it mockery to say their Lord and Savior is a liar?***
I didn’t call him a liar. Christ said in Mark 10:6 that man and woman were created at the beginning of creation. You mock me because I believe him.
***Do you consider that Jesus spoke and taught via parable?***
Yes.... neither Mark 10:6 or Luke 17:22-27 is a parable. It would outrageous to claim that it was.
***Do you think anyone who doesn’t accept the Noah story as exactly literal (such as many millions of Christians) are making a liar of Jesus, and are not really Christians?***
Since He validated it.... yes. A plain reading of Scripture is that Christ validated it.... and by the way, there is a ton of evidence that would support it. You have to have an open mind and be willing to investigate it. Have you done that?
***But then again it must be easy for you to claim you are a Christian and make a liar of the Lord by claiming that HE insists that to accept HIM you must believe many idiotic and impossible things.***
What exactly would be idiotic and impossible for the Creator of the Universe?
You seem to want to accept some of the Bible and reject some. Do you think God would have given us a book that speaks truth or do you think it would be part truth and part fiction and He would leave it up to us to determine what is and isn’t a story?
You want some extra-biblical evidence for the flood?
Try googling “Miautso”. I can give you a lot more than that but judging by your arrogance, I doubt you’ll do it.
Try reading about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. Here’s the pertinent verse:
LUKE 16:31
31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”
Yes indeed. Aquinas was brilliant. Young Earth Creationists, not so much.
No scientist worth a damn would tell you that something was a closed question. The nature of science is that things are accepted provisionally awaiting further data. At some point though it would be perverse to deny the accumulated data in various independent lines of inquiry.
“These are interesting questions, but of little practical significance. If we believe that God created the natural world from nothing, and that He Created the human race in whatever way He chose fit, what difference does it make to us now?”
My problem with creationism isn't so much that it is wrong - it is that it is USELESS. Even if correct. Like “last Thursday-ism” the idea that the everything was created last Thursday - even if it was true - it would be useless. “When was D-day?” “D-day never happened - we only have false memories and false records - everything was created last Thursday.”.
Knowledge of the ages of the Earth and how life changes is not useless. There is a reason why oil exploration companies hire geologists who know the age of the Earth - because such old Earth models are useful in predicting where there will be oil. Creationism - not useful.
We know that data from non-human primates are the most useful in drug discovery because of their genetic similarity to humans; but we also can predict that if something works in rats, mice and dogs - it is likely to work in humans as well.
Knowing the age of the most recent common ancestor of human populations allows you to predict the applicability of data in one population to another. There is a reason why Japan wants therapeutics tested on Japanese populations before they approve it for use.
Knowledge about evolution and common ancestry allows us to predict when different human populations last shared common ancestry.
Sucks to be you.
Now go cry some more. I find it amusing.
Calling me out for bad manners after your declaration that I am only claiming to be a Christian takes some rather blatant ignorance and gall - but that is all you have apparently - you sure are not qualified to discuss scientific matters!
The convergence of several independent lines of inquiry makes for a very convincing argument.
discussion with Christians who don’t believe doctrinally the same as me
I think the pope was wrong on this one, although he was certainly entitled to his interpretation of the scientific evidence.
Did you not notice he used the singular. The work actually misspelled was "Manny". He knows personally the geologist who is a Creationist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.