Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8971 total)
187 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, jar, Meddle (4 members, 183 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,368 Year: 7,116/23,288 Month: 1,022/1,214 Week: 34/303 Day: 34/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All Darwinists are Liars
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 1 of 37 (379026)
01-22-2007 5:53 PM


Romans 1:25 KJV writes:

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

"Who changed the truth...." = appearance of design corresponds to invisible Designer.

"....into a lie...." = corresponds to mindless natural selection.

"....and worshipped and served the creature...." = corresponds to what Darwinists replace God with (animals are our maker). Notice how many evo avatars are of animals?

This verse was written in 58 AD and it fits the reality of Darwinism to a tee.

Ray


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 01-23-2007 10:17 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 01-23-2007 10:51 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 01-23-2007 1:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12682
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2 of 37 (379050)
01-22-2007 7:04 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 37 (379186)
01-23-2007 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 5:53 PM


Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
This verse was written in 58 AD and it fits the reality of Darwinism to a tee.

Does it fit "Darwinism"? Who knows? The theme of the forums is to debate evolution and Creationism. Calling scientists who accept the Darwin-proposed evolutionary model of speciation "Darwinists" is somewhat misrepresentative of the truth.

The scientists I mentioned do not adhere to all of Darwins beliefs and models of the evolutionary tree like some Creos would like everyone to believe.

Now, however, on to the main parts of your post:

"Who changed the truth...." = appearance of design corresponds to invisible Designer.

Is there anything you can offer up that shows your interpretation of that passage as accurate? Let's examine the two preceeding verses:

From BibleGateway.com

quote:
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:


The "truth of God" in this case seems simply to refer to worshipping Him. In giving themselves to lust, these people are worshipping the creature (the human body--specifically here in a sexual manner) moreso than they are worshipping the spirit of God (who is often referred to as the Creator).

Now, lets look at the first passage I quoted (Rom 1:23) which condemns the practice of equating Godly things to manly things. Would arguing the most Godly Creation as though it were equal to the manly concept of science (Creationism/ID) perhaps fall in violation of this rule from God?

As for the rest of your interpretation, it is completely baseless. Unless you can show that the writers were specifically talking about the "evils of evolution", then you've got no case.

J0N


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 5:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 4:17 PM Jon has responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5493
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 4 of 37 (379195)
01-23-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 5:53 PM


Notice how many evo avatars are of animals?

And I've noticed that "Herepton" is a near-anagram, or maybe a dyslexism, of "Herpeton." That's Greek for "creeping thing," or part of the binomial of the East Indian tentacled snake.

What's your point, Ray?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 5:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 3:53 PM Coragyps has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1797 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 37 (379224)
01-23-2007 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object
01-22-2007 5:53 PM


While I have a vague idea of what you want to say, your lack of explanation really makes it hard for me to respond. Therefore, I will offer the following reitteration of what you were trying to say. Tell me if I am correct.

Paul in Romans 1 is talking about none other than Rome, the capital of a vast military and economic empire. In other words, he was talking about Romans. He referred to them as those who "changed the truth into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than god."

In the same way, we could view this passage to talk about the British Empire, which was also an awesome military and economic power of the world. Since the theory of evolution originated in England and conjured up by an englishman, we could view evolution as representing the roman idols that the romans were worshipping. In other words, you are suggesting that the biblical passage refers both to the Roman Empire and the British Empire. Furthermore, if I may suggest, that both of these entities would suffer the same wrath of god that Paul mentioned many times throughout Romans 1.

Am I correct so far?


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-22-2007 5:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 3:57 PM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 3:58 PM Taz has responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 6 of 37 (379251)
01-23-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coragyps
01-23-2007 10:51 AM


Cory writes:

And I've noticed that "Herepton" is a near-anagram, or maybe a dyslexism, of "Herpeton." That's Greek for "creeping thing," or part of the binomial of the East Indian tentacled snake.

What's your point, Ray?

You are correct, Cory.

I intended to write "Herpeton" but made an error and wrote "Herepton."
The word in the Greek indicates reptiles, translated "creeping things" in the KJV.

My point is that Romans 1:25 says it plainly: persons worship the creature (created things, in context one of the created things is reptiles) in place of God.

Who can this possibly be applied to in our society today?

Answer: Darwinists. They assert we are the products of common ancestry, including reptiles and birds in the lineage. Creationists agree with the Bible: we originated from Adam who was specially created. Science corroborates.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 01-23-2007 10:51 AM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 01-23-2007 4:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 7 of 37 (379252)
01-23-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
01-23-2007 1:10 PM


content deleted, I made a mistake.

Ray

Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 01-23-2007 1:10 PM Taz has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 8 of 37 (379253)
01-23-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Taz
01-23-2007 1:10 PM


Paul in Romans 1 is talking about none other than Rome, the capital of a vast military and economic empire. In other words, he was talking about Romans. He referred to them as those who "changed the truth into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than god."

Negative.

Where does it say Paul is talking about Rome?

Paul is talking about anyone who substitutes created things AS "creator" in place of God as Creator.

Darwinists are guilty.

Ray

Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 01-23-2007 1:10 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Jon, posted 01-23-2007 4:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 13 by AdminSchraf, posted 01-23-2007 8:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Taz, posted 01-24-2007 12:07 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5493
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 9 of 37 (379256)
01-23-2007 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Cold Foreign Object
01-23-2007 3:53 PM


So you found and chose a name to plainly show that you "worship" that which you find so repellant in others? That's real interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 3:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 37 (379259)
01-23-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object
01-23-2007 3:58 PM


who substitutes created things AS "creator" in place of God as Creator.

The word Creator here is as a reference to God, as it often can be. It does NOT mean that Paul thinks these unruly heathen sex-worshippers believe their lust and physical pleasures to be the source of all creation in place of God¹. Simply, that these people are worshipping the pleasures of the flesh in place of worshipping God--after all, they may very-well know God created the Universe but simply don't give a damn and would rather rot in Hell later and enjoy life on Earth now².

J0N


¹ This is not to say that I do not believe that to be the case ;)
² I also believe this too :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 3:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1554 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 11 of 37 (379263)
01-23-2007 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jon
01-23-2007 10:17 AM


Re: Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
Does it fit "Darwinism"? Who knows? The theme of the forums is to debate evolution and Creationism. Calling scientists who accept the Darwin-proposed evolutionary model of speciation "Darwinists" is somewhat misrepresentative of the truth.

Sorry, Jon. This comment tells me you are unread. ALL published evolutionary authorities use the terms "Darwinist" and "Darwinism" in their writings.

http://books.google.com/bkshp?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&tab=wp&q=Darwinism%20Wallace

Co-founder of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, wrote a book and titled it "Darwinism."

I repeat: EVERY Darwinian author today (Dawkins, Dennett, Mayr etc.etc.) uses both terms liberally to refer to their beliefs and worldview.

The scientists I mentioned do not adhere to all of Darwins beliefs and models of the evolutionary tree like some Creos would like everyone to believe.

Darwin himself predicted that many ideas and claims of his would eventually be falsified, however. The main structure of his theory stands firm today.

Darwin's branching tree model is defended tooth and nail. It symbolizes common ancestry - the main claim of the Darwinian paradigm offered against the Genesis creation model.

The "truth of God" in this case seems simply to refer to worshipping Him. In giving themselves to lust, these people are worshipping the creature (the human body--specifically here in a sexual manner) moreso than they are worshipping the spirit of God (who is often referred to as the Creator).

Where is the PRECEDING context does "lust" appear?

The preceding context mentions reptiles and birds.

As for the rest of your interpretation, it is completely baseless. Unless you can show that the writers were specifically talking about the "evils of evolution", then you've got no case.

My interpretation makes perfect sense. Evolution denies God creator credit. Verse 25 fits like a glove on Darwinism today: idol/animal worshippers.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 01-23-2007 10:17 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by mick, posted 01-23-2007 6:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 15 by Jon, posted 01-24-2007 9:46 AM Cold Foreign Object has responded

mick
Member (Idle past 3492 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 12 of 37 (379302)
01-23-2007 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object
01-23-2007 4:17 PM


Re: Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
ray writes:

My interpretation makes perfect sense. Evolution denies God creator credit. Verse 25 fits like a glove on Darwinism today: idol/animal worshippers.

Hi Ray,

In what sense to biologists worship animals? They spend a lot of time chopping them up to see what's inside, measuring them, putting them into liquidizers or slicing them into thin sections.

To say that is worship is stretching it a bit. I mean you worship Jesus but you wouldn't euthanize him and put him into a blender to get his DNA would you?

My second point is that "darwinists" are only liars if they "turn the truth of god into a lie". If I don't believe in God then I can hardly be lying when I say I think he doesn't exist. I may be mistaken but I'm being perfectly honest.

Mick


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 4:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2007 4:15 PM mick has not yet responded

AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 37 (379334)
01-23-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object
01-23-2007 3:58 PM


whoops.

Forgot this was Showcase.

Edited by AdminSchraf, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 3:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1797 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 14 of 37 (379401)
01-24-2007 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object
01-23-2007 3:58 PM


Herepton writes:

Where does it say Paul is talking about Rome?

A couple of passages from Romans 1...

quote:
7To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

quote:
14I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

Now, given that nowhere does he literally says "these are acts of romans...", would it make sense to talk to romans about people, say, in China, especially if you are trying to make a moral argument?


AKA G.A.S.B.Y.

George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 3:58 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2007 4:23 PM Taz has not yet responded

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 37 (379466)
01-24-2007 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object
01-23-2007 4:17 PM


Re: Scientists are not Members of the Darwin Cult!
Where is the PRECEDING context does "lust" appear?

The PREDEDING text (NOT context) that I was referring to was the text right before verse 25, did you even read that far down in my post?

Right at the end of verse 24 is a colon ( : ), this shows us that the following verse (25) is connected; related. Most likely the verse numbers were added long after the text had been written, and the people who added them saw the colon as an appropriate place to split the verses.

ALL published evolutionary authorities use the terms "Darwinist" and "Darwinism" in their writings.

This is true, but you imply an almost religious adherence to the Darwinian theory--a sort of Darwin worshipping--simply because scientists use his name to give him his due credit (such as: Ptolemaic System, Copernican Principle, Brownian Motion, etc.).

It DOES NOT serve the same purpose as Christian, for example, which is used to show the religious devotion of a particular people to their religion's founder (Christ).

When scientists name ideas and theories after those who first came up with them, they do it out of respect, and to give credit; not in order that they may worship them!

My interpretation makes perfect sense. Evolution denies God creator credit. Verse 25 fits like a glove on Darwinism today: idol/animal worshippers.

Okay, tell me this: where in the theory of evolution does it say anything about worshipping animals? Have you ever seen any "Darwinists" bow to a forest creature?

J0N

Edited by Jon, : y


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-23-2007 4:17 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 01-24-2007 4:35 PM Jon has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020