Alas, I had hoped that you would stick with this thread just a while longer – less than two months. I thought that as a true “last post” on New Year’s Eve you could confess that you had a great time stringing all of us on with your fascinating and fanciful story of the rapture occurring before year’s end. But instead of being one of the three white knights sent to the try to save the world as spoken of in Revelation, you say you are going to just slither away, not unlike that famous talking reptile in a Garden of Eden tree. You force me to revise my hopes that I actually conversed online with a specific hero mentioned in God’s Word, and replace that with the admission that I have been nothing but another dupe of yet another con man wearing the garments of Christianity. Well, I guess I can at least say I was the friend of a con artist. Good bye, good buddy.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Hedshaker
New member
I'm sure Al won't mind if I interject on a couple of points :think:
Yet you seem to have no problem with God "all just happened by itself"? After all, if this God is real it must surly be far more complex than its creation? So by your own argument he, she, it must itself have been created? Or do you mean nothing happens all by it self except for God? If something can happen "all by itself" then why not the universe"? At least we all accept that the universe is real.
Totally agree. There's no way Gods existence could just happened by itself. Your own argument doesn't allow for it.
Clearly then God must have been supernaturally created? If your logic is sound there is just no way around it :rapture:
I dunno about Al but I'm convinced. God is too complex for it to have happened on it's own. Good job :thumb:
Yet you seem to have no problem with God "all just happened by itself"? After all, if this God is real it must surly be far more complex than its creation? So by your own argument he, she, it must itself have been created? Or do you mean nothing happens all by it self except for God? If something can happen "all by itself" then why not the universe"? At least we all accept that the universe is real.
Totally agree. There's no way Gods existence could just happened by itself. Your own argument doesn't allow for it.
Clearly then God must have been supernaturally created? If your logic is sound there is just no way around it :rapture:
I dunno about Al but I'm convinced. God is too complex for it to have happened on it's own. Good job :thumb:
Last edited:
I didn't know TOL took so much of your life away, but you sound like like you really do need a break. Your thread will always be yours and I nominate 6 days and Davis BJ to head it up.
There are many other contributors also and your thread will stay alive. I'll post on it to keep it active too. You were the first one to show an interest in me and I won't forget you, stay in touch.
6days
New member
Those interpretations of evidence are in error.
"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” Archaeologist Nelson Glueck
“Holy Scripture could never lie or err...its decrees are of absolute and inviolable truth.”*–Galileo Galilei
Science as a methodology holds no allegiance to any religion – Biblically based or not. Many scientists pay no attention to how well their work comports with religious views. There are hundreds of religious traditions that I have no idea of what they want science to say, and the same is true for almost every scientist.
In the western world it is primarily fundamentalist Christianity that seems to see some aspects of science as a threat. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if science, in its endeavors to understand how the world actually works, could be left unfettered? If “truth” is universal, then religions that claim to be true should be appreciative of science confirming and adding to their truth, not standing as judge and jury over science.
How about those scientists who are religiously neutral – neither caring whether they confirm or contradict scripture? They should be the most impervious to claims of bias for or against the Bible. If their work shows a young earth, then that should be counted as a significant support for a young-earth. And similarly for old earth. It is best if they are disinterested in the conflict, and continue to pursue their work without feeling an allegiance to one side or the other. But that does not eliminate their conclusions from being brought to bear in the debate. When an impartial scientist publishes, then that new information becomes valid data for whoever sees it as important.
So I am willing to accept the clarification from my “fundamentalists vs. scientists” to your “scientists who believe the Bible is correct vs. scientists who believe the Bible is wrong”. For now I will refrain from addressing an incorrect assumption that is implicit in saying “scientists who believe the Bible is correct”, since it is not germane to the current line of thought. And a side note, you actually lost a majority of the original members on your side by correctly restricting it to just “scientists” instead of the more general “fundamentalists”.
Do any of these names sound familiar to you:
John Ankerberg
Gleason Archer
John Battle
Michael Behe
William Jennings Bryan
Walter Bradley
Jack Collins
Chuck Colson
Paul Copan
William Lane Craig
Norman Geisler
Robert Godfrey
Guillermo Gonzales
Hank Hannegraff
Jack Hayford
Fred Heeren
Charles Hodge
Walter Kaiser
Greg Koukl
C. S. Lewis
Paul Little
Patricia Mondore
J. P. Moreland
Robert Newman
Greg Neyman
Mark Noll
Nancy Pearcey
Perry Phillips
William Phillips
Mike Poole
Bernard Ramm
Jay Richards
Hugh Ross
Fritz Schaefer
Francis Schaeffer
C. I. Scofield
Chuck Smith Jr.
David Snoke
Lee Strobel
Ken Taylor
B. B. Warfield
Gleason Archer
John Battle
Michael Behe
William Jennings Bryan
Walter Bradley
Jack Collins
Chuck Colson
Paul Copan
William Lane Craig
Norman Geisler
Robert Godfrey
Guillermo Gonzales
Hank Hannegraff
Jack Hayford
Fred Heeren
Charles Hodge
Walter Kaiser
Greg Koukl
C. S. Lewis
Paul Little
Patricia Mondore
J. P. Moreland
Robert Newman
Greg Neyman
Mark Noll
Nancy Pearcey
Perry Phillips
William Phillips
Mike Poole
Bernard Ramm
Jay Richards
Hugh Ross
Fritz Schaefer
Francis Schaeffer
C. I. Scofield
Chuck Smith Jr.
David Snoke
Lee Strobel
Ken Taylor
B. B. Warfield
I don’t know all of them, but some of them I have frequently had presented to me as paragons of Christianity. And all of them, at least according to Reasons to Believe, are fine with an old-earth. That puts them on my team.
More locally, you know who The Barbarian is (was), Alate-One, and a few other TOL posters who have moved on – they are Bible-believing scientists who are trained in Biology and still accept the Theory of Evolution. Local guys, on my team.
Do you think Lord Kelvin was an infidel, because he was an ardent advocate of a millions-of-years old earth (and an opponent of Darwinism)? How about Ken Miller, the staunch Catholic who authored a major biology text that includes evolution? Are you are aware of the “Clergy Letter” and the “Rabbi Letter” in which over ten thousand spiritual leaders have signed their names avowing that “We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth”? If we were to visit their congregations, do you think we might find a Bible-believing scientist or two who does not join with you in opposing old-earth and evolution?” All on my team.
And finally, I wonder how it is that I have spent so many years working side by side with colleagues, some of whom made their deep belief in Christianity known, but happily accepted the old-earth results we were getting.
Now, can you tell us who the new members are that, in expanding my “fundamentalists” to your “scientists who believe the Bible is correct”, joined your team – who, based on science, disavow an old-earth and disavow the Theory of Evolution?
alwight
New member
"It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment."
Galileo Galilei
I'm a Christian, but typically, atheist pose a much better argument than most Christians. Christians can't seem to agree on anything. And they've, (esp. Christian scientist) have blundered this entire evolution thing to the point of no return. It's sad to say, but I agree with Davis on this one.
Last edited:
6days
New member
We agree. Atheist, creationist, vegetarian, Muslim etc all perform science in the same manner.*DavisBJ said:
Totally false.DavisBJ said:
Science is no threat in the slightest.
In fact..... science can be / should be another means of worshipping our Creator.
Science is not religion. New technologies and medical advancements are not dependant on beliefs in evolutionism *or creationism.DavisBJ said:
I do recognize many of the names and *would consider many of those brothers in Christ...some who have accepted some compromise into their beliefs.DavisBJ said:
If they have repented of sin and accepted Christ as Savior, then they too would be a brother or sister in Christ with whom I will spend eternity.*DavisBJ said:
Some of those you mention or allude to are true believers. Others reject the clear teachings of Christ and the gospel (Such as many of those at Biologos, who are apostate or heretical)DavisBJ said:
60 Minutes Tonight - NOW
The Higgs Boson Collider -
The Higgs Boson Collider -
Last edited:
I don't do facebook or participate in YOUTUBE eschatology... Try again!
If you can't reply on your own don't bother.
Last edited:
I agree with you views here, about science being left unfettered. Here on tol, it seems to be either science or Bible with no in between. As you say, there are very many scientists who don't care about anything but the data and the facts, no motives for evolution or faith.
I’ll have you know that for me to bring up and display your post about the Higgs Boson (not Bozon), it took up perhaps a thousandth of a second of my CPU's time. That was a thousandth of a second that, absent your post, in my computer would have gone to actually analyzing data from the Large Hadron Collider (the Higgs machine), as part of the BOINC effort. Don’t you feel bad?
Michael, you have identified the problem, and its not this thread. You said..."It is my job to cook the meals here. And they are delectable, but they usually take at least 2 hours to make."
Where I live, eggs boil in 4 minutes, veggies microwave in 8 mins, sandwiches take 5 minutes to make, and cereal takes 1 min to pour into a bowl.
I don't think I have ever spent 2 hours preparing a meal, except when I was an army cook, and had hundreds of potatoes to peel, and hundreds of tins to open (with a pocket knife because the can-opener did not work). Of course none of the troops ever called my food "delectable".
Dear iouae,
If you can make dinner in 10 mins., you are what you eat. I have some meals that take 3 hours to make. I get special meat from the butcher, ground 3 times to get any fat or gristle out and he puts a large onion in it, so that I have ground onion in my meat. It costs a bit, but I then mix it with wheat/bulghur and spices, and make delicious kibbee burgers with it. I make about 20 of them. I also make Chicken Paprikas which takes about 2 hours make. I make Sour Cream Chicken Enchiladas which takes 2 hours, etc. I cook some meals with white or red wine. We eat very good here. No sandwiches for us. I don't want to eat unless it is delectable.
Thanks for your post. I am replying to some posts here, but am not replying to all of them. No more hard work.
May God Be With You!! I Do Think You Are Special!
Michael
I rarely if ever, feel bad. I guess I was thinking of the Bozos that study it.
Bozon. btw, you don't have to pull up any posts, are mine any worse than the thread creator's ?
Dear iouae,
God does clobber His children for not believing. Look what He did to the Egyptians when they wouldn't let the Israelis go and not be enslaved any longer. Look what He did to Sodom and Gomorrah. Surely you realize that He does clobber when He wants to. Look at how He clobbered all of the people except Noah and his family. Look at what God did to Jonah because he would not go and warn the people of Ninevah. Look at how He let Job get clobbered to show he believed in God. Look at how Jesus got clobbered for our sakes. It does happen.
Michael
You are right, I am a bit ashamed to admit how many otherwise productive CPU cycles I have wasted responding to that feller. But he has said he is no more in this thread, so that temptation is history.
I don't think that an omnipotent supernatural being just existing is any less unlikely Michael.
A comet in fact represents an example of the materials that were most probably around in abundance as the Earth formed (accreted) billions of years ago.
The very early Earth would have been far too hot for water or life. However after it cooled down then the materials and gases that could have enabled life probably literally fell from the sky.
I know you want to put it all down to supernatural forces Michael, but unless supernatural forces are ever shown to cause anything then I'll instead stick to natural causes until then.
Yes I'd agree that the complexity of life is often astounding, but complex life didn't just happen, it evidentially became more complex as it slowly evolved, bit by bit.
How would a presumably omnipotent vastly complex supernatural entity be a better explanation. Such a being would surely need to be far more complex than the entire cosmos?
I'm not claiming that such a being doesn't exist, my case is that there is natural evidence, science and a viable process to explain what we see today. We have brains to think with, we should use them, not rush to suppose in magic if it starts looking a bit tricky to explain.
I provided a link to a vast array of transitional fossils, if creationists prefer to ignore them all then that's wilful ignorance that I can't do much about.
Darwin was reluctant to publish because he knew what a threat it was to the existing religious establishment and that his own wife would be deeply troubled by it. He never doubted his own ultimate conclusions.
Don't worry Michael, I only tell it as I see it. You don't need to leave, just take a break.
Life goes on within and without you, to coin a phrase.
You aren't responsible for what may transpire on this thread, you can simply leave it alone until you want to return.
Dear alwight,
This is one of the reasons why I don't like to answer posts. It is because I have to debate someone who is very close to me. It will only cause 'bad blood' to come between us.
Alwight, who or what do you think CAUSED this Big Bang to happen out of the blue. Do you think some hydrogen molecules caught fire? Where did those hydrogen molecules come from?? Where did the original building blocks come from?? How the Earth got formed, along with Mercury and Venus, etc. What caused gravity or electromagnetic force. Do you think these all came to be by themselves?? And a moon or moons around each planet to Earth, but not Venus or Mercury yet?? What do you think determines this? There is a genius behind all of this who you don't want to acknowledge. He is Great, Powerful, and Omnipotent. He has an Incredible Imagination. He is a Master Chemist and Biologist, and Architect. Who do you think made the remainder of the Universe outside of our Milky Way Galaxy? Do you actually think these things happened by themselves, without a Creator. Think about it long and hard. You can't see the oxygen in the air, but it is there. The same with carbon dioxide, but it is there. You can't see God, but He is there. You can't see the wind, but you can feel it's effect. Some things are unseen and some things are seen. You've got to consider some of these questions and delve deep to consider that there may indeed be Divine Creator. Think about it all for a few days. Then, get back to me. I hope we can still remain great friends regardless of the things I have to say sometimes. I value our friendship more than I value this thread.
Much Love And Respect, Alwight. I'm so glad we got to meet!!
Michael
:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9:
iouae
Well-known member
Hi Michael
I think it is wonderful that you care enough to go to that trouble, and I am sure those you cook for are glad too. Sounds pretty healthy too.
I also like adding wine or beer to stews and soup and marinating steak in wine - but mostly I forget to.
Chicken I microwave for 8 minutes, then dip in equal parts ketchup and chutney - then onto the barbecue - turn each side once and its done in half an hour - and sticky delicious. I barbecue with a handful of twigs so its ready for the chicken in minutes, and it gives chicken that smokey taste.
Don't neglect your music.
Thanks for the post.
- Status