Posted on 10/11/2009 6:56:59 AM PDT by OneVike
“A perfect design cannot be corrupted.”
You don’t seem to understand the nature of sin. By creating beings with free will, the opportunity for sin is an unavoidable consequence. The only way God could seem to satisfy your definition of perfection, would be to create mere automatons or puppets.
And then God says He created pretty much everything except humans after it’s own kind...An indicator of two things...One, that these things existed before the creation as we know it and two, evolution is entirely out of the question...
I hadn't noticed that. If you're right about that, that'll be very unusual.
Thanks for the ping!
You’ve walked onto thin ice here.
I have pointed out on previous threads that Young Earth Creationism implies that Yahweh acts like Loki the Trickster. That is, the overwhelming evidence of the earth’s old age is either real, or God is misleading us.
Secondly, if God “doesn’t do wasteful,” then life can’t begin at conception—since many millions of zygotes are created but discarded from the womb before the mother even knows a conception has occurred.
Huh? “Thin ice”?
To understand God’s Word is getting onto thin ice?
Not only that, but to suppose that he’s “misleading” people just because certain people don’t get it, is every bit as ridiculous.
As far as wasteful eggs, they’re not fertilized yet, it takes two to tango sort o speak.
That’s like saying it’s wasteful to have created all the oxygen particles in the atmosphere merely because they’re not all consumed by oxygen consumers.
Huh?
Source?
“If a fellow “evolutionist” provides incorrect information, I will point that out”.
Really?
I’ve not seen that, not only by you of your “fellow evos”, but by ANY evo.
Well, I take that back, recently “tenacious” something or other pointed out the mischaracterization of creationists on the idea that someone will go to hell if they believe in evolution, corrected his “fellow evo” on such nonsense.
But even then, that was more about eternal religious ideas than evo-religious ideas.
It’s laughablke how all over the map evos are...from origins not having anything to do with evolution, to evolution is theory not fact, to how it’s actually taught in public screwels to how insignificant evolution is in regards to the application of biology specifically and science generally.
IN FACT that would be all time consuming in regards to or compared to this subject!
It is open to considerable interpretation. One of which was mine that you have now rejected as inaccurate. I’m fine with that; I am now simply looking for understanding of your words.
Really? You ask that with a straight face?
Much of modern science has become to mixed with ideology and is used to push agendas for one thing, as in global warming and evolution.
Global warming is obvious. I know a lot of evolutionists disagree with the evolution angle, but evolution has become the weapon of choice in the war against religion. There’s a real dearth of protest against misusing science in political and ideological gain.
It is being misused and abused by those who want to hijack it, and the lack of protest from the scientific community is alarming. That silence implies a fair degree of agreement with what’s going on.
Instead of what used to be the search for knowledge and the application of it for the betterment of mankind’s lot, science has become, for many, what they put their confidence in in looking for the answers that only religion can provide. It is being treated, mostly by the atheist/agnostic, the same way that believers treat religion and their faith in God.
The scientific method is useful for exploring our universe. It is useless for providing the answers about the meaning of life, and that is just what is happening today. The faith that some put in science equals the faith that others put in God.
Thus, for some, science has become their religion.
I’m not sure about your view that “after it’s own kind” implies that God was re-creating these creatures in the likeness of some that previously existed. I’ve never heard that position before, so I’ll have to do some research into the Hebrew when I get home and see what I can come up with.
You've GOT to be kidding me! No, ummmmm, sooooo aptly named one....that's not correcting fellow evos...that's actually attacking creationists for rightly pointing out the cult-like atmosphere of evolution and any and every examination is attacked as "religious attacks on science".
As a matter of fact, now that I'm thinking about this subject, I've seen this idea about dino soft tissue before and every liberal on FR has crawled out of the woodwork to smear and squeal and shout down debate about it.
You would be well served to carefully read #170.
And that's not at ALL how science works.
I know it's some partial IDEAL theory of how it works, but in practice it simply doesn't happen and for hundereds if not thousands of times people have provided you with the hot air cult example of your fellow liberal evo-cultist algore to illustrate just how broekn down science is on many levels.
I suppose liberals just don't want to understand they've hijacked science, and definitely don't want to hear it.
I note you did not write that they disagree about the validity of evolution.
OF COURSE they don't disagree about their evo-religion! That's not at all in contention, but yet another helpless strawman argument. Geeee, that wouldn't even be tolerated!
Or the mechanisms in a general sense. I credit you for that.
I don't know about the mechanisms, I've seen quite a bit of arguments, on both sides of the aisle btw...about micro vs. macro-evolution, etc. etc. etc.
And FWIW, I think the actual discussion and scientific communication can be both enjoyable and informative, on FR and formally speaking.
As far as your last question...ummmm why would there ever be a need?
If an evo-cultist accepts evolution as their religion outright, if they're an atheist or agnostic, it's not even an issue in play.
If one is confused and dismisses Genesis and the veracity of scripture, then I suppose they can just pick and choose what parts of the Bible to accept and which to reject on the basis of their own sensisibilities.
That's not how it works, but personally I'd never condemn a person to hell for such mis-guided beliefs...
First, I'm not the ultimate judge...
second, I honestly try not to judge a person's eternal destination.
third, I'd pray for them, since this is just a senseless thing to get uptight about...origins...or the idea that people are really nothing more than soulless great apes...people will believe what they want to believe anyway...it's their choice.
But to pretend this discussion arises on here because creationists are actually doing that,
as opposed to the REALITY of evos mis-representing creationists for that...along with 'flat earth' this and 'Jesus riding dinosaurs' that...
is pretty laughable and the only people that buy into that nonsense are the FR liberals on here that don't know they stick out like sore thumbs!
The only one who apparently is permitted to challenge a *scientist* is another *scientist*.
And since evos/scientists decide that they get to define the terms, they get to decide who qualifies as a *real scientist* and is allowed to challenge another without earning a screed about religious attacks on science.
Not that you see much of scientists challenging other scientists going on. Peer review weeds them out.
Good thing science isn't done by consensus.
Blah blah blah. I just remembered that I declared that I would never post to you again. I honestly had forgotten, but you’ve refreshed my memory.
I’m eager to see all the others who frequent the religion forum to reign in your deplorable lack of decorum.
Have a lovely evening.
awwww....tat’s the other thing...besides making up rules liberals never intend to keep for themselves, they can’t take what they dish out either.
xoxo
"Don't get it" in what way??
Obviously, the earth can't be on;y a few thousand years old without (a) MAJOR changes in laws of physics (so major that they'd be bizarre...roasting anything on the earth with faster radioactive decay, which would require wood being non-flammable in the past, etc., or (b) God created it with the look and evidence of age (e.g., trapped argon gas at levels that correspond to millions of years of potassium breakdown, etc.)
I suggest that even if God didn't just make things look old, and instead changed the laws of physics so radically from how things work now, it's misdirection. Besides, if He did that, then the definition of time and "days" is meaningless. (BTW, I don't know (m)any YECs who acknowledge time as anything other than an external universal dimension. Do you acknowledge the work of Einstein and others who followed?)
As far as wasteful eggs, they’re not fertilized yet, it takes two to tango sort o speak.
I didn't write about unfertilized eggs.
Please address what I wrote instead of a red herring. Thanks.
To understand God’s Word is getting onto thin ice?
No...To base understanding of God's Word on willful disregard of the evidence.
I know your asssertion #106, but what’s your source?
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.