Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…3536384041…232

Comments

  • #1112
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Let's take what the Catholic church has said:

    Quote:
    According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. .
    If that is what they truly believe ... let them deny the Apostle's Creed ... and we will then know exactly what we are dealing with.

    If they don't do this ... then I would only term this stuff as scientific speculation on the part of the Roman Catholic Church ... with about as much credibility as their support for Geocentrism ... in an earlier era.


  • #1113
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    If they don't do this ... then I would only term this stuff as unfounded scientific speculation on the part of the Roman Catholic Church ... with about as much credibility as their support for Geocentrism ... in an earlier era.
    But the Bible claims that we live in a geocentric universe. It's there in black and white.

    Man, your wriggling is hilarious. The mental contortions you go through...I kind of admire how you can believe totally contradictory things at the same time.


  • #1114
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    But the Bible claims that we live in a geocentric universe. It's there in black and white.
    Where in the Bible?


  • #1115
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    If you believe you already have the answers to your question before you start, you can't be taken seriously when you claim to be investigating it.
    Yes, that seems to be a trap that Evolutionists have fallen into.:)


  • #1116
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    A better example of the logical fallacy of the 'appeal to consequences' could not be found in a logic textbook.
    ... but these are very serious consequences indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #1117
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, that seems to a trap that Evolutionists have fallen into.:)
    No, scientists started with a clean sheet (although slightly smudged with superstition and folklore from the bible) and arrived at evolution.

    Creationists started with the bible story and finished with the bible story.


  • #1118
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    ... but these are very serious consequences indeed.
    So if a herring is very red, then it must be taken seriously? And you think a scarlet herring is going to prove your case?


  • #1119
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    Where?
    All over the place - 'the earth shall not be moved', the foundations of the earth, the vault of the sky - everywhere it states that the earth is fixed and the stuff in the sky moves.

    Why exactly do you think your Christian predecessors believed the idea strongly enough to persecute those who said otherwise? Were they just having a laugh?


  • #1120
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    No, scientists started with a clean sheet (although slightly smudged with superstition and folklore from the bible) and arrived at evolution.

    Creationists started with the bible story and finished with the bible story.
    Scientists started with the truth in the Bible (nearly all of the so-called 'Fathers of modern Science' were Creationists) ...
    ... and then Darwin and the Secularists tried ... and have so far failed ... to provide a credible alternative.:)


  • #1121
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    Scientists started with the truth in the Bible (nearly all of the so-called 'Fathers of modern Science' were Creationists) ...
    ... and then Darwin and the Secularists tried ... and have so far failed ... to provide a credible alternative.:)
    So you are changing your position, and now claiming that everyone started from the biblical myths?


  • Advertisement
  • #1122
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    So if a herring is very red, then it must be taken seriously? And you think a scarlet herring is going to prove your case?
    Spontaneous Evolution strikes at the very heart of Christianity ... as it denys God's true and righful place as Creator ex nihilo of the Universe and all life therein.

    The fact that theories that bolster Atheism, are potentially destructive of Christianity should come as no surprise to anybody ... whether Christian or Atheist.


  • #1123
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    All over the place - 'the earth shall not be moved', the foundations of the earth, the vault of the sky - everywhere it states that the earth is fixed and the stuff in the sky moves.
    References please.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Why exactly do you think your Christian predecessors believed the idea strongly enough to persecute those who said otherwise? Were they just having a laugh?
    If you are referring to geocentrism ... it was because some of them believed the ancient Greek Atheists on astronomy ... just like some of them now believe the latter day Atheists on biology.:)

    http://www.universetoday.com/32607/geocentric-model/


  • #1124
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    Spontaneous Evolution strikes at the very heart of Christianity ...
    This is irrelevant as to whether it is true or not; Unless you beg the question with regard to the veracity of Christianity, which I thought you claimed you did not?


  • #1125
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    systemsready wrote: »
    The prophets have shown us many things. Lets look at some examples. Worship God (Good for the soul)

    Prove it. Quantify the resulting change in the nature of the soul.
    systemsready wrote: »
    Avoid fornication (Good for the health)

    No- fornication is sex outside of marriage which is no more healthy than sex within marriage. What you mean is that promiscuity is better avoided.
    systemsready wrote: »
    Eat what God has made lawful for you (Good for the health)

    No correlation between the proscribed foods and ill-health that I am aware of.
    systemsready wrote: »
    Fast regualrly (Good for the health)

    The scientific consensus is that fasting confers no health benefits.
    systemsready wrote: »
    Circumcise (Good for the health of you and yourr wife)

    Circumcision is only of benefit to men who are promiscuous in HIV hot-spots. Promiscuity is already forbidden by God's law and HIV did not arise until nearly 2000 years after the last chapters of the Bible were written.
    systemsready wrote: »
    Plus many many many other physical things...not to mention spiritual things. In all my years I havent heard any scientists come out and agree with these things as one body.

    That would be because the evidence indicates they're nonsense.
    systemsready wrote: »
    There are scientists who disagree with these things. So who are you gonna go with. A Prophet who has divine guidance or a scientist?

    You can't verify that a prophet has divine guidance. You can't verify any other person's revelation because by it's very nature it is subjective to them. Scientists operate on the basis that they must be able to demonstrate things objectively- to show their findings to others, be subject to scrutiny and replication. So the answer is that you go with the scientist unless you are credulous.
    systemsready wrote: »
    I know its a rhetorical question. But would you trade guidance for misguidance?

    You have traded knowledge for opinion.
    systemsready wrote: »
    YOU SAID:
    "As to your meaning- if there is a God, you don't know His view of your meaning. That leaves you with your own assessment, which you would still have even if you abandoned your faith".

    Of course I know his view of me. Its in scriptures. I am His servant.

    No. You know that this is written in a book which says that it is the Word. How do you know that it is the Word?


  • #1126
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    References please.
    Dozens of them here. Pretend they don't exist if you like, but they are there for all to see.
    J C wrote: »
    If you are referring to geocentrism ... it was because some of them believed the ancient Greek Atheists on astronomy ... just like some of them now believe the latter day Atheists on biology.:)

    http://www.universetoday.com/32607/geocentric-model/
    The ancient Greeks weren't atheists. In fact, you are more atheist than they were, as they believed in more gods than you do.


  • #1127
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    This is irrelevant as to whether it is true or not; Unless you beg the question with regard to the veracity of Christianity, which I thought you claimed you did not?
    The poterntial damage caused to Christianity by the concept of Spontaneous Evolution is indeed irrelevant as to whether it's true ... you need to study Creation Science and ID to disprove Spontaneous Evolution.

    The point In was making is that IF ... for the sake of argument, Spontaneous Evolution is true then Christianity has no logical basis ... and Jesus was just another nice person trying to do some good in the World ... and nothing more.


  • #1128
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    <snip>...free speech.

    J_C, you have written nearly 8000 internet posts that adequately demonstrate that there is no threat to the freedom of even the most inane speech. You have a right to free speech, but that speech has no right to our respect. Your ideas are worthy of ridicule, so you either need to make them worthy of respect, make peace with the derision or just go back to spamming bible verses.

    Now, are you going to answer any of the questions I've asked recently? Or can I take it that you've got nothing? That there are no tangible fruits of ID research? That there is no explanation for how freshwater and salt water fish could have survived the inundation of the world? That there is no explanation for where 4 billion cubic kilometers of water fell from the sky in 40 days and then vanished five months later?


  • #1129
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    It is indeed irrelevant as to whether it's true ... you need to study Creation Science and ID to disprove Spontaneous Evolution.
    I don't, actually - I need to study the world around me and find out where the evidence leads. It leads to evolution. If you feel that undermines your faith, tough titty - but that's why it's called 'faith', you aren't supposed to need proof.
    J C wrote: »
    The point In was making is that IF ... for the sake of argument, Spontaneous Evolution is true then Christianity has no logical basis ... and Jesus was just another nice person trying to do some good in the World ... and nothing more.
    Nonsense. Total nonsense, and totally offensive to millions of Christians who can accept that the bible is not supposed to be a science manual.


  • #1130
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    That there is no explanation for where 4 billion cubic kilometers of water fell from the sky in 40 days and then vanished five months later?
    God can do anything. He just can't be expected to do it right the first time though.


  • #1131
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Dozens of them here. Pretend they don't exist if you like, but they are there for all to see.
    They're all turns of phrase ... we still refer to people 'going to the ends of the Earth' for example.
    You need to take a plain reading of the Bible ... and stop being a 'Bible Literalist'!!!:)
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    The ancient Greeks weren't atheists. In fact, you are more atheist than they were, as they believed in more gods than you do.
    Claudius Ptolemy, the inventor of geocentrism didn't believe in any of many the Greek Gods ... and thus was effectively an Atheist.

    ,


  • Advertisement
  • #1132
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I don't, actually - I need to study the world around me and find out where the evidence leads. It leads to evolution. If you feel that undermines your faith, tough titty - but that's why it's called 'faith', you aren't supposed to need proof.
    You don't need faith to believe in God ... you can objectively prove He exists ... from His Creation.

    You do need faith to believe on Jesus Christ ... but it is a well founded faith ... based on the veracity of the Bible.
    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Nonsense. Total nonsense, and totally offensive to millions of Christians who can accept that the bible is not supposed to be a science manual.
    Unfortunately, it isn't nonesense ... Spontaneous Evolution is the greatest conceptual competitor to Christianity in the world today.


  • #1133
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    They're all turns of phrase ...
    Ah, that must be it. Turns of phrase. So when the bible is proved comprehensively wrong, the offending parts become 'turns of phrase', even though the same words were so true in the past that people died for disagreeing with them.

    What were you saying about the god of the gaps? :D


  • #1134
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    God can do anything. He just can't be expected to do it right the first time though.

    Or in the presence of anyone with a recording device more sophisticated than a pen and paper.


  • #1135
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Ah, that must be it. Turns of phrase. So when the bible is proved comprehensively wrong, the offending parts become 'turns of phrase', even though the same words were so true in the past that people died for disagreeing with them.
    I have always maintained that a plain reading of scripture is the correct approach ... and if something is clearly a turn of phrase ... like 'going to the ends of the earth' ... that is the way it should be read.


  • #1136
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I don't, actually - I need to study the world around me and find out where the evidence leads. It leads to evolution. If you feel that undermines your faith, tough titty - but that's why it's called 'faith', you aren't supposed to need proof.
    You're the one without proof ... or indeed any logical basis for your unfounded belief in the power of matter to spontaneously generate the levels of CFSI found in life.:D


  • #1137
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    I have always maintained that a plain reading of scripture is the correct approach ... and if something is clearly a turn of phrase ... like 'going to the ends of the earth' ... that is the way it should be read.
    Funny how all their turns of phrase indicate a geocentric universe. Surely you can provide me with some quotes that talk about the earth orbiting the sun? At least as many, seeing as these are mere figures of speech?


  • #1138
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    J C wrote: »
    You're the one without proof ... or indeed any logical basis for your unfounded belief in the power of matter to spontaneously generate the levels of CFSI found in life.
    There's lots of proof. That's why it's a scientific theory. The stuff there isn't proof for: creation by Thor, by mystical fairies, by Michael Jackson - that's not a scientific theory.

    When you find an argument that disproves all the other creation myths, you might be onto something. 'I found it in an old book' applies to all of them too, you know.


  • #1139
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Funny how all their turns of phrase indicate a geocentric universe. Surely you can provide me with some quotes that talk about the earth orbiting the sun? At least as many, seeing as these are mere figures of speech?
    The issue of what orbits what, simply doesn't arise in the Bible.
    This stuff was the province of the astrologers and the Pagan religions.


  • #1140
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    J C wrote: »
    I have always maintained that a plain reading of scripture is the correct approach ... and if something is clearly a turn of phrase ... like 'going to the ends of the earth' ... that is the way it should be read.

    Sure, if you assume that 20th century English language metaphors are applicable to texts 6000 year old texts translated from ancient Hebrew. The phrase implies that somebody, at some time, considered the Earth to have literal ends. And oddly enough, Zechariah is the first known example of the phrase being used... odd that we can't find the presumed earlier literal version.


  • Advertisement
  • #1141
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Nonsense. Total nonsense, and totally offensive to millions of Christians who can accept that the bible is not supposed to be a science manual.
    Please spare me the 'crocodile tears' for Christianity.


Advertisement