Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 33 of 196 (157759)
11-09-2004 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
11-09-2004 7:47 PM


Re: Where is the conflict?
I agree with most of what you said there Buz.
The only thing I would mention, is that - is it not possible for God to use nature and randomness?
Think about it. Me and you know that we've had our prayers answered - and it's remarkable - but most of them seem to come about by some natural way. If we required food for example - it would - apparently - by cance *supposedly* - land on our doorstep - so to speak. But guys like you and me know that everything has a purpose - even chance. Hope you know what I mean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2004 7:47 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2004 8:23 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 38 of 196 (157767)
11-09-2004 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
11-09-2004 8:23 PM


Re: :Mmmm, not really.
I don't see how the Genesis record can possibly be construed as to being interpreted randomly and natural selectively.
But you don't HAVE TO take it literally Buz. Tis a very old book.
I've come to find that God delights in answering many of my prayers for specifics in such a manner that I KNOW he did it
Exactly. But most of them are natural right? God is so clever that he can use the natural to intervene in our lives.
You can be sure God answers your prayers even if we evolved you know Buz. As for Genesis - didn't God "let the earth bring forth".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2004 8:23 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2004 8:52 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 41 of 196 (157774)
11-09-2004 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Buzsaw
11-09-2004 8:52 PM


Re: :Mmmm, not really.
I take it all literally EXCEPT when the context indicates otherwise. Otherwise it becomes a smorgasboard of stuff for each to pick and choose to suit each's personal whims.
Well - I mean, doesn't everyone have a different interpretation anyway?
SOme things are obvious - like Jesus's peaceful teachings etc.. But what about fire-breathing dragons and talking snakes? Shall I believe in them, or did the authors get over-excited?
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-09-2004 09:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Buzsaw, posted 11-09-2004 8:52 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 11-10-2004 12:33 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 51 of 196 (157910)
11-10-2004 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
11-10-2004 12:33 AM


Re: Keep What Is Written.
Jesus and the apostles alude to it as it was literal, effecting the sinful nature, the fall of man and the need for redemption, so it is paramount to correlate NT doctrine and it's message.
Actually - modern man is still guilty of Eden - all the difference is - that Erectus was on his way out of Africa with a small brain - and when hominin evolved into modern man - then we would have had to answer to God, as he would have had the brain capabilities, and the breathe of life (Spirit) put in him.
So - Jesus himself used the OT against the OT'ers of his day.
Either Baugh or Ham have told you that the literal Genesis is crucial to the NT. What they haven't figured out is that evolution is literally irrelevant to the meaning if Genesis.
Example; Human civilisations have existed for thousands of years - with no observable morphological differences of any major aspect. It just turns out that God is so clever - that he can evolve us - and even fit our entire existence as spiritual beings - into this evolution, without us even knowing about it.
So evolution becomes irrelevant to Genesis Buz - as all our evolving was done before Adam - and the OT and NT - are still intact, and still used for showing the inspired words of God.
I can certainly stick by the texts and evolution - it's surprisingly easy Buz, there's not much "fitting" needed even.
So am I now excommunicated from the brethren Buz?
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-10-2004 09:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 11-10-2004 12:33 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 11-11-2004 12:25 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 53 of 196 (157914)
11-10-2004 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by contracycle
11-10-2004 9:07 AM


Erm, excuse me, can you please add a name so we know who you are referring to? Or are you just being rude?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by contracycle, posted 11-10-2004 9:07 AM contracycle has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 58 of 196 (157921)
11-10-2004 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by contracycle
11-10-2004 9:14 AM


It's not desperate rationalisation. I don't need to... Genesis - if regarded as a significant mysterious book concerning the beginning of man (homo sapiens) - is truly irrelevant to evolution. If one regards it as a happy and true story given to the Hebrews to please God - Or I believe in mitochondrial Eve - just where is the problem? It's none-existant - why? Because the story is about man's sin - and is just as prevailent/relevant as Jesus's parables.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-10-2004 09:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by contracycle, posted 11-10-2004 9:14 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by contracycle, posted 11-10-2004 9:36 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 60 of 196 (157924)
11-10-2004 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by MrHambre
11-10-2004 9:24 AM


Re: But who would buy it?
Erm - thanks,,.....I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by MrHambre, posted 11-10-2004 9:24 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 61 of 196 (157925)
11-10-2004 9:32 AM


Buz - I see you are swamped - you don't have to reply to my posts. Sorry, I didn't notice yur warning about needing a "breather". I'll read.

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 65 of 196 (157929)
11-10-2004 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by contracycle
11-10-2004 9:36 AM


If the bible is meaphor rather than literal, its all gibberish
Friend - it's not my problem if you can't figure out that something doesn't have to be literal to be true.
Today I woke up and left a chocolate log in the dumper - for santa to eat..
. I can claim sin doesn't really exist anymore than the garden does, now that the garden is the whole of africa
Erm - no - mitochondrial Eve doesn't mean I believe that I believe the Eve of Genesis was her. It means I believe we came from erectus "Eve" - and the Eve in the bible is the first homosapien de spirit. Besides - people already claim sin doesn't exist and that the biblie is baloney - so why do you think I care?
You've just destroyed the idea that the bible is evidence or reportage of god.
Erm - no, I haven't. I just don't believe Jesus is literally a lamb.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by contracycle, posted 11-10-2004 9:36 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by contracycle, posted 11-11-2004 4:40 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 69 of 196 (157948)
11-10-2004 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by kc8rdb
11-10-2004 10:15 AM


Re: Making sense of it all.
One thing that might help is a simple rule;
If something is mentioned which defies the natural laws God put in place by being in place (as in Leviathan by nature - fire breathes), IF that occurence is not dealing with God's supernatural power/activity - then there's a reasonable doubt that it can be taken literally.
. We can deduce this because we know that fire-breathing creatures don't appear in nature - and would defy the law of physics which we ourselves tout as God-made. We have reasonable doubt therefore, to thus not conclude literal fire-breathers.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-10-2004 10:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by kc8rdb, posted 11-10-2004 10:15 AM kc8rdb has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 90 of 196 (158351)
11-11-2004 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by contracycle
11-11-2004 4:40 AM


Jesus is just a methaphor for your inner peace. There was not actual person called Jesus. There was no death on the cross. IT's JUST A METAPHOR.
No - this doesn't break the rule I made. Jesus being a human is highly probable, Jesus on the cross is highly probable....Infact - the four different texts demand that Christ did die and came to life again.
However, the "Lamb of God" isn't literal, as it is post-Jesus, and we know that Christ is the SOn of God.
You're under an illogical position;
You are saying;
If this here verse says that Jesus is a lamb - and in Genesis it says snakes talk - then the WHOLE bible is metaphorical. However - this is not accurate - we know the to are false because we know snakes don't talk and already know Jesus is human. It just means Jesus is human - not that the whole thing is metaphorical.
It's like saying " This leaf has two red spots, therefore - it must all be red" while infact - most of it is green.
It's like saying;
If Mike says he's basically good - yet spits on the sidewalk and curses - THEN he is not basically good.
I still think the bible is the inspired words of God - I am not afraid of people trying to say it is wrong if not taken literally - they are under the spell of one-way thought - they are focusing in on one miniscule part of the painting. There are many mysteries - purposefully in the bible - other things are clear - and can only be taken as true. It doesn't mean the whole bible is metaphor.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 11-11-2004 10:15 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by contracycle, posted 11-11-2004 4:40 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by contracycle, posted 11-12-2004 8:23 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 91 of 196 (158353)
11-11-2004 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
11-11-2004 12:25 AM


Re: Keep What Is Written.
Buz - I will respond later today, haven't time at moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 11-11-2004 12:25 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 93 of 196 (158405)
11-11-2004 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Buzsaw
11-11-2004 12:25 AM


Re: Keep What Is Written.
But Adam was created in God's image outa the ground, not procreated from half baked ancestors, according to the Biblical record. Imo, it would be rather odd of God to evolve stuff. If he has the power to make it evolve he has the power to create intact
That's true - but a good painting always takes longer than a bad one.
If God has eternity - what is instantaneous or prolonged, to God? If a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years - then God is uneffected by time. Even you are an old-earther aren't you?
This is the problem Buz - some would say you don't take it literally enough, some would say a true bible-believer would believe in a six thousand year old earth. Where does it end? It becomes silly - some are YEC, some are OEC and some are theistic evo's. Let's be honest - it doesn't matter how we think God baked the cake, what matters is we believe he baked it.
LOL, Mike. Ham and Baugh were likely being born about the time I became a Christian and began reading and studying the Bible at age 10.
Okay - fair enough - how do you deal with the seven days though? Are they literal days?
But the Bible, both old and new, say he was the first man
That's right - homo sapien man - but not a none-talking "half-baked" critter, lol.
Dreaming up what's not in there is easy, indeed, Mike, but it's secular humanistic deception to undermine the Biblical record.
Well, with guys like Contracycle - maybe. But the science is still observed as objective. If it's done right - it won't matter what secular humans think. The biblical record is still valid - with evolution.
God is the judge, not me. Messing with and adding to what God has inspired to be written is dangerous,
Wel...I'm not adding. And if I am - then certainly YEC's are also - as "kinds" in the bible is not an invitation to make a creo kind theory from a book of faith.
I'm not saying the bible says evolution - I'm saying that it doesn't but that won't make the bible untrue. It also doesn't mention gravity etc...or train fares in the future.
If I write a book about why I got run over by this car - and it said "because the darn jerk done it on purpose - that's why" - does that mean that if I don't explain how I got ran over by the various naming of exact ins and outs - concerning how it came to hit me, then my story is innacurate? Only guys like conmancycle use evolution against God.
I count you as a brother in Christ based on your testimony. Imo, it's what you believe and do about God and Jesus that really counts, not what you believe about origins,
Thanks - you're right that God judges. You get a bad press here in this town but I am not fooled by that press - many would have taken that question as an opportunity to say I am "not a true believer".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Buzsaw, posted 11-11-2004 12:25 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 105 of 196 (158672)
11-12-2004 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by contracycle
11-12-2004 8:23 AM


I still think the bible is the inspired words of God
Those four texts are just four versions of the same methaphor about inner peace.
No - they depict human events. The authors declare their testimonies as true. It's that simple to figure out contracycle.
That's the problem with what you are saying regarding the whole thing as metaphorical - or "picking and choosing"./ The difference between us - is that I am only taking as not literal - what I am forced to. For example - you'd say Jesus is metaphor - but the rule I stated isn't applied when dealing with what God can do - as he isn't bound by natural law. I'll repeat the rule for you from message #69 of this thread;
If something is mentioned which defies the natural laws God put in place by being in place (as in Leviathan by nature - fire breathes), IF that occurence is not dealing with God's supernatural power/activity - then there's a reasonable doubt that it can be taken literally.
Now - We have no choice - we have to take Jesus as true because the authors insist on their testimony, and there is no need to apply a rule because Christ being divine means he won't be "unable" for example, to walk on water. The rule "doesn't deal" with God's abilities.
What I'm saying is that varuous christian denominations pick and chosoe which bits of the bible they are going to treat as literal, and which as metaphor. In which case, I acan do exactly the same, and tell you that you have failed to understand your own holy book
This is a much touted and vastly exaggerated claim, as most people via common sense can derive whether the texts are trying to tell the facts or not. INFACT I attend christian forums - and we agree about most things, concerning Christ. What we have trouble over - is only things like Genesis, which is troublesome when taken literally. SO your assertion that we "pick and choose" is not true - as I know we don't through personal experience. Most things we agree on, and only a few poetic verses cause debate amongst us. Genesis is problematic because many have taken it literally to fight a few atheistic evolutionists who use evolution against the bible...To prove my point - look at Revelation, it's just as poetic and no one cares about it that much.
Except for the bits you choose to treat as metaphorical, right
Erm...I still see the metaphorical as the inspired words of God. (?)
No no - because christians are claiming to have Revealed wisdom, revealed to them by god. It is not illegitimate to hold christians to their own claims. Either the book is the revealed word of god - or it is not. Pick one, you cannot have both
But what wisdom do we claim - that you want to know about? I have some wisdom I couldn't have previously had - but I've seldom come across anyone who wants to know about it - but when I go to christian forums, to my surprise - they already "have" or "know" what I have derived from the bible, despite me reaching those conclusions without knowing there own conclusions.
It is the revealed word of God - I know it cannot be A and not A, I claim it is A - and that some books are poetic and more metaphorical than others. But claiming that it is inspired, doesn't mean I am claiming it has no errors, it also doesn't mean I am claiming it is perfect, and it doesn't mean I am claiming it is all factually true. It means I am claiming that is is The inspired words of God written by man - sixty -odd different authors.
Since the predicate of metaphorical is irrelevant to it being the inspired word of God - metaphor will not contradict it being inspired by God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by contracycle, posted 11-12-2004 8:23 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by contracycle, posted 11-12-2004 11:47 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 107 of 196 (158738)
11-12-2004 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by contracycle
11-12-2004 11:47 AM


They don't depict human events becuase humans do not come back from the dead.
Already answered in previous post. Read it twice, or even three times.
No but you see, god is just a metaphor for your own enlightened spirit
In previous posts I've answered that not all of the bible is metaphoric, yet you still claim God is a metaphor, despite asserting that you don't say it is all metaphorical. It's a logical error - I will only explain one more time:
If you say the whole leaf(bible) is red(metaphor) - then it cannot be green(literal) in places. You have stated that the leaf(bible) is not completely red(metaphor) - so it CAN be other colours, because - quote; ". nope, not at all" - in response to me saying that you think it is all metaphoric. You then argue as if it is all metaphoric. Which is it?
I personally have stated that it can be poetic in places, but that we are left with no choice in regards to Jesus. He is literal.
As you yourself admit, the bible is NOT necessarily perfect, and factually true. Thats becuase god is just a metaphor.
Wrong, I said;
mike writes:
But claiming that it is inspired, doesn't mean I am claiming it has no errors, it also doesn't mean I am claiming it is perfect, and it doesn't mean I am claiming it is all factually true.
I didn't admitt the bible is not necessarily perfect - I am simply not claiming it is perfect. IOW - I have not claimed it is perfect. That doesn't mean it isn't perfect, it means I haven't claimed it is. In this regard - I have said nothing about it's perfection, and have said that if it is in parts metaphor - that won't mean it isn't inspired by God.
Punk says; "- Do you claim it is A? sir" - Baba says; "I am not claiming it is A, so I am not claiming that."
Punk says; "So you think it isn't A? sir" - Baba says; "MAN - I'm not claiming the positive, that doesn't mean I am claiming the negative". It means I am NOT claiming THE POSITIVE - That's [all of] the information you can conclude!
As for the rest of your post - most people think Jesus is literal, because he is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by contracycle, posted 11-12-2004 11:47 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by MrHambre, posted 11-12-2004 1:25 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 119 by contracycle, posted 11-16-2004 10:41 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024