Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello Riichard
    This will be the last post in this thread. I want to move on instead of skirting round the issues that have nothing to do with what the Bible is saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I can't think of anything in the creation chapters that would be acceptable to a rational skeptic. Nothing in the later chapters makes any sense scientifically. There was no global flood and the various languages did not come from God confusing languages at Babel. Most skeptical scholars think that the earliest point real history could begin would be in Genesis 12 with the call of Abram, and I agree. But there's no way to confirm that he really existed.
    I have no reason to doubt that God divided the languages though we do not need to start there. Abraham is an important character, God made promises to Abraham and it is from Abraham that Israel has descended. It does not matter that Abraham is not mentioned in secular history, the importance is to see the continuity of God's word and how God will keep the promises to Abraham. We can agree the promises and then see when those promises were fulfilled.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I'm glad we agree that the Bible, as it exists today and as represented by ALL existing manuscripts, contains errors. But there is no reason whatsoever to think there were inerrant originals because many of the errors obviously existed in the original, such as the creation story.
    We have agreed that the Bible is not a science book, but there is no reason to reject the creation story even though I have suggested we do not start from here. The creation story is a simple story and I have explained does not go into lots of detail. It gives an explanation of why we are here and what the origin of the earth and all things in the universe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It is the BELIEVERS that have "preconceived conclusions" that are forced by doctrines they've been taught. I am free from all of that so I can see with clear eyes what the Bible actually states. There is absolutely no reason anyone should begin with the idea that the Bible is "God's Word." But that's where believers start. They start with an absolutely unjustified presupposition. I've been stating this fact for a year on this forum now and no one, not one, has presented any reason to think otherwise.
    It might not be from where I started but it does not mean that I am brainwashed by false doctrine. I have been able to study the Bible by myself and share thoughts with others and I have come to what I am confident is a better understanding than what the mainstream churches teach. Having rejected lots of teaching that I cannot agree with, I am not abandoning my beliefs. I will revisit these beliefs in the course of Bible exposition with you, but you should not accuse me of following doctrine as if following a blind leader. If I associate with people with the same beliefs, it is done willingly and knowingly. For the sake of doing Bible exposition to get to a proper understanding, then perhaps we should consider ourselves belonging to two separate cults of which we are the only members.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Where are we going? What are we trying to determine?
    I want to agree what the Bible says on particular subjects. It does not matter whether what we read in the Bible is poetry or a play or prophecy the first thing is to read correctly and understand as best we can what the Bible is actually saying and not what we think it is saying or the myriad versions of what others think it is saying.


    [QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;50912]There is no "correct order" to the creation story in any literal sense. The earth was not created in the beginning. Light was not created before the sun. Plants were not created before the sun. The birds were not created before the land animals. And there was no "first woman" created from the rib of the "first man." The creation story is totally unbelievable if taken literally. That's why Christians have been debating what it means for so long. The best solution is to accept it more as a literary structure - poetry and figurative language. There is good evidence for this because the seven days form a menorah, which also matches the pattern of the Bible Wheel (see Chapter 3 of the Bible Wheel book):


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It is possible that God could be behind the advancement of science, but I see no reason to think so.
    The fact that you agree it is possible is sufficient. To agree it is possible is the same as to agreeing that God can rule in the lives of people to bring about His purpose and that includes the people in government of the nations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I am not putting faith in science to come up with all the answers. I doubt science will have "all the answers" in a thousand years, let alone in my lifetime. I would not be surprised if there are questions that science probably will never answer.

    And please refrain from using the creationist canard that says people put "faith in science." You are forced to put your "faith" in your interpretations of the Bible because you have no evidence supporting them. That's diametrically opposed to science which is based on EVIDENCE, not faith. Please stop repeating that falsehood.
    Maybe not you, but people are putting their faith in science to come up with the cures to combat illness and disease and extend lifespans. Those with the money, are having their bodies frozen in the hope that they can be defrosted when a cure has been found and they can be restored to life. It might be a few, but this is the message going out. Kaku is saying as little as 2100 for humans to have the power of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It would be really nice if we could get past these common and erroneous creationist talking points.
    and for that reason I agree we can skip the creation story though to believe in God we must believe in God as creator and not in evolution without creation. We do not need to return to the creation story, though we might have to refer to some scriptural principle that originates from the Adam and Eve story.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I agree. Concepts like "omniscience" and "eternal" (in the sense of timeless) are not really biblical anyway. They were introduced by later Christian philosophers. The Bible presents an anthropological God with lots of emotions, irrationality, and limitations (though it contradicts itself elsewhere). So let's stick to the actual Biblical descriptions of God and see where that leads.
    I disagree with your opening statement. We have references to God in the OT as being eternal and we have references to God as the almighty God. We have some passages that suggest God can be everywhere (if not specifically all at the same time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    A good place to start would be the assumption that the Bible is (or ever was) God's inerrant Word.
    I prefer not to make any assumption what so ever and just get to the understanding of the word and the message.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Or if you don't want to go there, then perhaps we should start with how the Bible defines the concept of "God" since we encounter God in the first verse of the Bible. That's probably the best starting point.
    Yes we could start here for if we are talking about God we should know what God has revealed to us about himself.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    How will that help resolve the fact that everyone has different opinions about the Bible?
    We can bring other opinions to the table, and ultimately we must agree of continue to differ. It does not matter what others think, what is important is the conclusion our own exposition leads to. Once we are agreed on a subject, it would be up to others to fall in line or to come up with their reason to differ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Is there any other ancient literature that you feel qualified to interpret without reading what the experts have written? Shakespeare? Homer? The Arabic Koran? Why would we want to limit ourselves to be IGNORANT of all knowledge that went before us?
    I do not want to refer to any other literature except dictionaries that will help get to all possible meanings of words. By referring to other works of men, unless we agree with their findings that have to be supported by scripture, I would regard them as works of fallible men and so I am likely to agree with your statement . All the knowledge we need is in the Bible and that is what we must study.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I am not "labeling" you when I mention the fact that you have adamantly defended all the doctrines of the Christadelphians. You consistently label me as deceived by the teachings of the "mainstream churches" - so what's the difference?
    I am not specifically trying to label you with a set of doctrines pertaining to any one church. By the doctrines you support and promote, it is obvious some of those doctrines belong to mainstream Christianity. There is a lot of overlap between different churches, but the big issues are like those of the nature of Jesus, the pre-existence of Jesus, the devil, the Trinity, the resurrection, and the kingdom of God on earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your assertion that you have "no reason to believe the Bible is error ridden" suggests that you have never really thought about that with an open mind. I say this because you cannot give any reasons to believe the Bible is not error ridden.
    I have not given it as much thought as you have done in order to build up your case. I have challenged you in the past to raise the errors and I will do my best to explain them away. I do not go looking for errors and if I come across what I think is an error, I look for a legitimate meaning that will not appear as an error.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It is impossible to begin "with no presumption that it is errant and fallible" because we already know about many errors it contains, and many errors that would certainly have been contained in the originals.
    it is difficult to lay aside all the conclusions we have already come to, so all we can do, is bring all the evidence and re-examine the Bible passages to see how better we might understand them. I do not see the amount of errors that you do and so I do not make the claim you are doing

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And besides, the Bible is a book written by humans, and all books have errors. So the most rational starting point is to assume it contains some errors.
    I have agreed that the Bible contains errors due to translation and transcription and might have some deliberate errors that have been put in, but we should be able to spot those that do not fit in. We can ignore whether the message is right or wrong until we have understood the message.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I did not "introduce the Trinity in Genesis." You did. I was responding to your assertion that "God is presented as ONE." That is obviously in response to the doctrine of the Trinity which you adamantly oppose. That's why I said it probably was not a good place to start.
    We shall soon find out if the Trinity occurs in Genesis or in the OT. I have quoted on a number or occasions the verses that say; "I am God and beside me, there is none else"


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Neither the Oneness of God nor the Trinity can be determined by focusing only on Genesis. If the doctrine is taught anywhere in the Bible, it is in the NT.
    That is my point; why should God of the OT who is revealed as the ONE God suddenly appear as a God of Three in the NT? God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. God does not change.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The fact that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayer means that he cannot be trusted to do anything for anyone. Yet the Bible repeatedly asserts God can be trusted. That's why this issue is significant. It has nothing to do with the huckster faith healers. It has to do with the conflict between Reality and what the Bible teaches.
    It is a matter of personal faith and I do not know the things you have prayed for or the way you have prayed for them, God answers prayers in the way He knows best is for us. People in the bible did not get their prayers answered straightaway and had to wait years. It is not surprising that the Bible teaches us to be patient. Any hint that you might be testing God is not going to work. Your reality is different from other people's reality. We might explore the differences to find out what is missing for your prayers to be answered. The


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your assertion that God can be trusted is like saying that you can fly by flapping your arms. You KNOW it is not true. You KNOW that God cannot be TRUSTED to do anything. Everyone knows this. Suppose your son got appendicitis. Could you literally TRUST God to heal him? OF course not. And you know it. This is an indisputable fact. God cannot be trusted to actually do anything at all. Simple as that.
    As above, any attempt to test God is not going to succeed. Expecting God to answer your prayer in order to get proof is not a valid enough reason to have prayers answered. If "the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much", why is is then your prayers were never answered?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I think you are mistaking the idea of "TRUSTING GOD" to actually do something (like heal your son) with your belief that God will do something later (like resurrection) even though he did nothing to stop your son dying from appendicitis.
    I am reminded of the poem that says; "almost all when age, disease or sorrow strikes them, is inclined to think there is a god or someone very like him". It is not good enough to seek God only in times of trouble and not seek God when not in trouble. We have to live with the fact that people can lay claim to major recoveries as a result of prayer that cannot be explained away. I think it it is possible for a person's faith to be so strong in themselves that they will recover, and that their faith, though not God-based, can be enough for the mind to have control over the body and cause self-healing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It is difficult to discern between "chance and the providential care" because they are probably the same thing.
    A person whose heart is right with God will thank God for all they receive and take nothing for granted. They will not curse God (as Job did not) when in times of adversity and will give thanks to God for whatever they receive to sustain them.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Faith? Faith in what? Look at the ten thousand contradictory interpretations of the Bible. Why should I believe any of them? And how could anyone have faith in a God who promises to be trustworthy but who has proven that he is absolutely untrustworthy?
    The fact that Christians say that God is trustworthy when they know he is not convinces me that they have been brainwashed with meaningless words. The word TRUSTWORTH means "worthy of trust." God cannot be actually TRUSTED to do anything. Everyone knows this. The truly deluded are jailed when they don't give proper health care to their children because they are "trusting God."
    Your statements are just repetition. You must decide which interpretations to possibly accept and which interpretations to reject. We can only go on the testimonies of those who are convinced of God's providential care and treat each case on its own merits.


    I will wait for you to start a thread on the nature of God in whose image man has been created.

    All the best

    David

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I can't think of anything in the creation chapters that would be acceptable to a rational skeptic. Nothing in the later chapters makes any sense scientifically. There was no global flood...

    Is there any other ancient literature that you feel qualified to interpret without reading what the experts have written? Shakespeare? Homer? The Arabic Koran? Why would we want to limit ourselves to be IGNORANT of all knowledge that went before us?

    Looking forward to a new beginning,
    Help me out here Richard, you say that, scientifically there could have been no global flood, yet there are many ancient accounts from diverse cultures relating the details of a great flood which included characters similar to those in the Bible. Do you not question this phenomena, or does your new beginning include limiting yourself to ignorance of this knowledge that went before us? Don't you find it at least peculiar that the flood account is so widespread?

    Have you ever taken a "Google Earth" tour of the Grand Canyon? If not you should. First, it is an amazing thing to just take the tour, but, in so doing, you will get a chance to examine the terrain all over this area and the evidence is overwhelming that there had to be, at one time, an astonishing amount of water which left its mark, etching out spillways and trenched out valleys where the runoff waters drained away. In fact, if you take a tour of all the great mountain ranges, the evidence of water erosion from these high places, carving out great valleys is unmistakable. I found it a very convincing testament to the account of the Biblical deluge. One thing was clear to me after making these personal observations, Catastrophism trumps Uniformitarianism when it comes to explaining the Earth's historical surface scars, and the former concept is not unpopular with many geologists, past and present who've concluded that a catastrophic flood event best describes the earth's current topography.

    I understand why you reject the idea of the flood. You have simply chosen whom to trust, but denial does not prove that it didn't happen, especially in light of the persuasive visible evidence.

    All the best to you too my friend in your search for Truth, wherever it leads.

    John

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Help me out here Richard, you say that, scientifically there could have been no global flood, yet there are many ancient accounts from diverse cultures relating the details of a great flood which included characters similar to those in the Bible. Do you not question this phenomena, or does your new beginning include limiting yourself to ignorance of this knowledge that went before us? Don't you find it at least peculiar that the flood account is so widespread?
    Good morning John,

    There is a massive amount of evidence for LOCAL floods happening throughout the history of this planet. There is ZERO evidence for a global flood that killed all land animals as described in the Bible. Simple as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Have you ever taken a "Google Earth" tour of the Grand Canyon? If not you should. First, it is an amazing thing to just take the tour, but, in so doing, you will get a chance to examine the terrain all over this area and the evidence is overwhelming that there had to be, at one time, an astonishing amount of water which left its mark, etching out spillways and trenched out valleys where the runoff waters drained away. In fact, if you take a tour of all the great mountain ranges, the evidence of water erosion from these high places, carving out great valleys is unmistakable. I found it a very convincing testament to the account of the Biblical deluge. One thing was clear to me after making these personal observations, Catastrophism trumps Uniformitarianism when it comes to explaining the Earth's historical surface scars, and the former concept is not unpopular with many geologists, past and present who've concluded that a catastrophic flood event best describes the earth's current topography.
    It is rather curious that you gave no evidence for your assertion that "the evidence is overwhelming that there had to be, at one time, an astonishing amount of water which left it's mark." Why do you not believe it resulted from slow erosion over a period of millions of years?

    You don't seem to understand how science works. You can't just go by superficial appearances and leap to your preconceived conclusion based on an ancient text written by primitive superstitious people who were totally ignorant of how the world really works. The problem is that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts the flood story. Here are a few of the facts you will need to explain away if you want to believe in a global flood:
    • There is no evidence of a global extinction of all the land animals in the last hundred thousand years.
    • There is no evidence of a genetic bottle neck that would be expected if all modern animals descended from pairs in recent history.
    • Ice cores from Antarctica are continuous over a span of a hundred thousand years. There is no evidence that Antarctica was deluged by a global flood.
    • etc.

    The idea of the global flood is simply outside the realm of scientific possibility. And besides that, there are all sorts of improbabilities, like polar bears and kangaroos traveling thousands of miles, even crossing oceans, to get to the Middle East to get on Noah's ark to prevent them from being killed by the flood. And what were the carnivores supposed to eat when they got off the ark? There is no end to the absurdities generated if we interpret the story literally. I can't imagine any serious adult believing it for a second.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    I understand why you reject the idea of the flood. You have simply chosen whom to trust, but denial does not prove that it didn't happen, especially in light of the persuasive visible evidence.
    Please try to be a little more serious. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "whom to trust." As I explained in a recent post, I was trained in science and I REPRODUCED many scientific experiments myself. I measured the speed of light, the acceleration of gravity,and many similar things. I don't take science "on faith." Creationists constantly misrepresent science as if it were as unfounded and absurd as their own religious beliefs and so must be "taken on faith" with no supporting evidence. You write as if you believe that cars, computers, and cell phones run on "faith" like Islam, Mormonism, and Christianity. This is getting ridiculous. Don't you care if your beliefs have any connection with truth and reality?

    Al the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I can't think of anything in the creation chapters that would be acceptable to a rational skeptic. Nothing in the later chapters makes any sense scientifically. There was no global flood and the various languages did not come from God confusing languages at Babel. Most skeptical scholars think that the earliest point real history could begin would be in Genesis 12 with the call of Abram, and I agree. But there's no way to confirm that he really existed.

    Looking forward to a new beginning,
    I think it's an interesting point that Jesus made when telling of the account of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, that Jesus quoted the rich man's request (v 27-31)... "Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house for I have five brothers so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment. But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them. And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”

    Of course Jesus was alluding to His own resurrection when he included that part in the parable, but it is a noteworthy addition that the validity of the Books of Moses was affirmed when it was implied that Moses' testimony was just as reliable as the testimony of someone returning from the dead. In other words, if one rejects Moses' Book of Genesis, they will necessarily reject Jesus, for both Moses and the Resurrected Christ testify to the Truth.

    Food for thought from your friend,

    John

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855
    Actually, 2 floods, when Peter speaks of the one prior to Day One...
    Gen1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    2Pet3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
    Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

    The "replenish" in Gen 1:28 confirms this for me; likewise Jer4:23.

    No problem for dinosaurs and neanderthals to live in the pre-Adamic age. Right?
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I have no reason to doubt that God divided the languages though we do not need to start there. Abraham is an important character, God made promises to Abraham and it is from Abraham that Israel has descended. It does not matter that Abraham is not mentioned in secular history, the importance is to see the continuity of God's word and how God will keep the promises to Abraham. We can agree the promises and then see when those promises were fulfilled.
    In my estimation, you have EVERY reason to doubt that God divided the languages, and NO reason to believe he did.

    I have no problem whatsoever following the story line of the Bible. We don't need to believe it is all factual - the truth is it is probably more like a historical novel. It is obviously based in a lot of real history, but there is no reason to believe the story itself is entirely historical.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    We have agreed that the Bible is not a science book, but there is no reason to reject the creation story even though I have suggested we do not start from here. The creation story is a simple story and I have explained does not go into lots of detail. It gives an explanation of why we are here and what the origin of the earth and all things in the universe.
    There is every reason to reject the creation story as literally true. It has all the hallmarks of the mythological cosmology of the ANE. I've proven this dozens of times and no one has challenged, let alone refuted, the facts. I presented the same information again just last week and got no response:

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I am mystified by your willingness to assert that the Bible is "God's revelation" when in fact you have never given any evidence supporting that assertion, and there is so much evidence to the contrary. The real issue is that the interpretation of the Bible changes in accordance with our scientific knowledge so the Bible can never serve as a guide to such questions. The truth can only be discerned by science. For example, when folks were ignorant of the true age of the universe they had no problem believing that it was created six thousand years ago. The Bible did not guide anyone into truth, but rather misled them to err by a factor of about 2.3 million (6,000 x 2,3000,000 = 13.8 billion years). God's "eyewitness account" gave no Christian any idea about the truth of "what really happened." They had to wait for the scientific discovery of the geological ages back in the 19th century which then forced Christians to change their interpretation of "God's eternal Word" to conform to the new information. Some Christians refuse to accept this evidence, even now in the 21st century. This is a monument to how dogmatic religion blinds people to truth. The irony is that they can't see that they are merely holding to antiquated "science" that presents a primitive mythological cosmology of a three-tiered universe with of a flat earth held up by pillars with water below and above held up by a dome. Here is an article from the conservative Christian think-tank called www.Biologos.org that explains the ancient mythological cosmology of the Bible: Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible. It quotes lots of Scripture. I think they give good support for there conclusion.



    This is the worldview that folks would get just by reading the Bible. The truth is found only by scientific research. To appeal to the Bible as the source of objective scientific facts about the world is obviously erroneous and misleading.
    This is the mythological cosmology taught in the Bible. And the Bible is filled with other ancient Greek mythology concerning mythical creatures like the hydra (serpent with many heads) as discussed in the thread Greek Mythology in the Bible?.



    No Christian has yet refuted these facts. I am utterly mystified by how believers can claim to believe the Bible while denying what it plainly states.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I want to agree what the Bible says on particular subjects. It does not matter whether what we read in the Bible is poetry or a play or prophecy the first thing is to read correctly and understand as best we can what the Bible is actually saying and not what we think it is saying or the myriad versions of what others think it is saying.
    Excellent! That's a perfect starting point.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I am not putting faith in science to come up with all the answers. I doubt science will have "all the answers" in a thousand years, let alone in my lifetime. I would not be surprised if there are questions that science probably will never answer.

    And please refrain from using the creationist canard that says people put "faith in science." You are forced to put your "faith" in your interpretations of the Bible because you have no evidence supporting them. That's diametrically opposed to science which is based on EVIDENCE, not faith. Please stop repeating that falsehood.
    Maybe not you, but people are putting their faith in science to come up with the cures to combat illness and disease and extend lifespans. Those with the money, are having their bodies frozen in the hope that they can be defrosted when a cure has been found and they can be restored to life. It might be a few, but this is the message going out. Kaku is saying as little as 2100 for humans to have the power of God.
    People have very good reasons to hope science will find cures for diseases, given that science has proven itself quite successful in that endeavor, whereas belief in God has been proven to be utterly useless in that regard.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    and for that reason I agree we can skip the creation story though to believe in God we must believe in God as creator and not in evolution without creation. We do not need to return to the creation story, though we might have to refer to some scriptural principle that originates from the Adam and Eve story.
    Many Christians have tried to find a harmony between God and evolution because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I agree. Concepts like "omniscience" and "eternal" (in the sense of timeless) are not really biblical anyway. They were introduced by later Christian philosophers. The Bible presents an anthropological God with lots of emotions, irrationality, and limitations (though it contradicts itself elsewhere). So let's stick to the actual Biblical descriptions of God and see where that leads.
    I disagree with your opening statement. We have references to God in the OT as being eternal and we have references to God as the almighty God. We have some passages that suggest God can be everywhere (if not specifically all at the same time.
    No, we don't have Biblical references to God being "eternal" in the sense of the Christian philosophers. The Bible words (Hb: olam, Gr: aionios) are based on the roots meaning "age" (long time) not "eternal." The Christian philosophers invented a God that is nothing like the anthropological God of the Bible. I just happened across an article on the HuffingtonPost this morning talking about this fact. It's called 5 Common Misconceptions about the Bible which says:
    The character "Yahweh" in the Hebrew Bible should not be confused with the god of western theological speculation (generally referred to as "God"). The attributes assigned to "God" by post-biblical theologians -- such as omniscience and immutability -- are simply not attributes possessed by the character Yahweh as drawn in biblical narratives. Indeed, on several occasions Yahweh is explicitly described as changing his mind, because when it comes to human beings his learning curve is steep. Humans have free will; they act in ways that surprise him and he must change tack and respond. One of the greatest challenges for modern readers of the Hebrew Bible is to allow the text to mean what it says, when what is says flies in the face of doctrines that emerged centuries later from philosophical debates about the abstract category "God."
    This is why it is so important to study the history of Christian theological speculation. It is where many of the ideas that you think are "biblical" actually arose.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    A good place to start would be the assumption that the Bible is (or ever was) God's inerrant Word.
    I prefer not to make any assumption what so ever and just get to the understanding of the word and the message.
    Excellent! I presume then that you will stop asserting it is the "Word of God" in this discussion?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I do not want to refer to any other literature except dictionaries that will help get to all possible meanings of words. By referring to other works of men, unless we agree with their findings that have to be supported by scripture, I would regard them as works of fallible men and so I am likely to agree with your statement . All the knowledge we need is in the Bible and that is what we must study.
    That seems exceedingly foolish since the Bible is literature and so to be understood it must be compared with all the literature of its time. The fact that you don't want to do this, which is what all scholars know they MUST do to understand any work of ancient literature, suggests that you are still asserting that the Bible is different because it is the "Word of God." But this contradicts your statement that you would not be making that assumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I am not "labeling" you when I mention the fact that you have adamantly defended all the doctrines of the Christadelphians. You consistently label me as deceived by the teachings of the "mainstream churches" - so what's the difference?
    I am not specifically trying to label you with a set of doctrines pertaining to any one church. By the doctrines you support and promote, it is obvious some of those doctrines belong to mainstream Christianity. There is a lot of overlap between different churches, but the big issues are like those of the nature of Jesus, the pre-existence of Jesus, the devil, the Trinity, the resurrection, and the kingdom of God on earth.
    The reason those doctrines belong to "mainstream Christianity" is because they accurately represent what the Bible teaches. You will never be able to convince many believers of doctrines that directly contradict the plain teaching of Scripture, such as when you deny Peter's teaching about the "angels that sinned."

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I have not given it as much thought as you have done in order to build up your case. I have challenged you in the past to raise the errors and I will do my best to explain them away. I do not go looking for errors and if I come across what I think is an error, I look for a legitimate meaning that will not appear as an error.
    But why would you begin with the presumption that the Bible is error free? You certainly don't begin with the presumption when studying the Koran, the Book of Mormon, or any other book. Why do you give the Bible a special status?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    It is impossible to begin "with no presumption that it is errant and fallible" because we already know about many errors it contains, and many errors that would certainly have been contained in the originals.
    it is difficult to lay aside all the conclusions we have already come to, so all we can do, is bring all the evidence and re-examine the Bible passages to see how better we might understand them. I do not see the amount of errors that you do and so I do not make the claim you are doing
    My point was that we should not begin with a presumption of inerrancy. There is no warrant for that at all. We should begin with the same presumption we would use when evaluating any book, which is that all books potentially contain error.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I did not "introduce the Trinity in Genesis." You did. I was responding to your assertion that "God is presented as ONE." That is obviously in response to the doctrine of the Trinity which you adamantly oppose. That's why I said it probably was not a good place to start.
    We shall soon find out if the Trinity occurs in Genesis or in the OT. I have quoted on a number or occasions the verses that say; "I am God and beside me, there is none else"
    That verse you quoted is not from Genesis. To determine the truth or falsehood of the Trinity, we would have to discuss the NT passages that address it.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Neither the Oneness of God nor the Trinity can be determined by focusing only on Genesis. If the doctrine is taught anywhere in the Bible, it is in the NT.
    That is my point; why should God of the OT who is revealed as the ONE God suddenly appear as a God of Three in the NT? God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. God does not change.
    The fact that the Trinity is not clearly expressed in Genesis does not mean that it is not the Biblical teaching. We must examine the whole Bible, not just parts that fit our preconceptions. And your assertion is not true anyway. Many people see the Trinity in the OT, including Genesis. Even the Jews have developed a doctrine that closely mirrors the Trinity. Here is what Jewish scholar Yehuda Liebes said in his Studies in the Zohar, pg. 140:
    It is a well-known fact that the Zohar frequently describes the Godhead as a threefold unity, doing so in different ways. The tenfold structure of the Kabbalistic sefirot can actually be fitted into threefold division, particularly in accordance with a certain passages from Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer - a passage on which the Zohar bases itself (see note 15) - thus remaining within the realm traditional Judaism.
    Your doctrines denying the Trinity seem like sophistry to me. We all know that folks can make up any doctrine they want from the Bible. All they need to do is twist words. Who's to say who is right and who is wrong. It's like philosophy that never comes to any provable conclusion. Each person believes what they want to believe. If you wanted to believe in the Trinity, you could create arguments for it and assert absolutely that they are absolutely NECESSARY just like you do with the angels that sin.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The fact that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayer means that he cannot be trusted to do anything for anyone. Yet the Bible repeatedly asserts God can be trusted. That's why this issue is significant. It has nothing to do with the huckster faith healers. It has to do with the conflict between Reality and what the Bible teaches.
    It is a matter of personal faith and I do not know the things you have prayed for or the way you have prayed for them, God answers prayers in the way He knows best is for us. People in the bible did not get their prayers answered straightaway and had to wait years. It is not surprising that the Bible teaches us to be patient. Any hint that you might be testing God is not going to work. Your reality is different from other people's reality. We might explore the differences to find out what is missing for your prayers to be answered. The
    You missed my point. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "personal faith." It has to do with the FACT that God is NOT TRUSTWORTHY. Don't you know the meaning of the word "trustworthy"? It means that you could TRUST GOD to actually do something. But you KNOW that you cannot trust God to actually do anything. You can hope all day, you can pray all night, but you cannot "trust" because you KNOW that he cannot be TRUSTED to actually do anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Your assertion that God can be trusted is like saying that you can fly by flapping your arms. You KNOW it is not true. You KNOW that God cannot be TRUSTED to do anything. Everyone knows this. Suppose your son got appendicitis. Could you literally TRUST God to heal him? OF course not. And you know it. This is an indisputable fact. God cannot be trusted to actually do anything at all. Simple as that.
    As above, any attempt to test God is not going to succeed. Expecting God to answer your prayer in order to get proof is not a valid enough reason to have prayers answered. If "the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much", why is is then your prayers were never answered?
    It is not an attempt to "test" God. It is a simple statement of fact. No Christian can TRUST that God will actually do anything at all. Everyone knows this. If you had a sick child, you could not TRUST that God would actually heal him. God therefore is NOT TRUSTWORTHY by definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I think you are mistaking the idea of "TRUSTING GOD" to actually do something (like heal your son) with your belief that God will do something later (like resurrection) even though he did nothing to stop your son dying from appendicitis.
    I am reminded of the poem that says; "almost all when age, disease or sorrow strikes them, is inclined to think there is a god or someone very like him". It is not good enough to seek God only in times of trouble and not seek God when not in trouble. We have to live with the fact that people can lay claim to major recoveries as a result of prayer that cannot be explained away. I think it it is possible for a person's faith to be so strong in themselves that they will recover, and that their faith, though not God-based, can be enough for the mind to have control over the body and cause self-healing.
    This has nothing to do with seeking God "only in times of trouble." The FACT is that God cannot be TRUSTED to actually do anything in any specific circumstance. If I told you that you could trust me to help you, and then you have some trouble and ask me for help and I ignore you as if you did not exist, would you call me "trustworthy"? Of course not. I get the impression you don't understand the word "trustworthy."

    And it is entirely irrelevant if some few people here or there have "major recoveries as a result of prayer that cannot be explained away." That only proves that God is not trustworthy. Those people who were "healed" were the lucky few, if they were healed at all (mere anecdotes prove nothing, and the fact that we can't explain spontaneous recovery does not prove it was the result of prayer).

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    It is difficult to discern between "chance and the providential care" because they are probably the same thing.
    A person whose heart is right with God will thank God for all they receive and take nothing for granted. They will not curse God (as Job did not) when in times of adversity and will give thanks to God for whatever they receive to sustain them.
    They would get exactly the same results if they prayed to a milk jug:



    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Faith? Faith in what? Look at the ten thousand contradictory interpretations of the Bible. Why should I believe any of them? And how could anyone have faith in a God who promises to be trustworthy but who has proven that he is absolutely untrustworthy?
    The fact that Christians say that God is trustworthy when they know he is not convinces me that they have been brainwashed with meaningless words. The word TRUSTWORTH means "worthy of trust." God cannot be actually TRUSTED to do anything. Everyone knows this. The truly deluded are jailed when they don't give proper health care to their children because they are "trusting God."
    Your statements are just repetition. You must decide which interpretations to possibly accept and which interpretations to reject. We can only go on the testimonies of those who are convinced of God's providential care and treat each case on its own merits.
    They need to be repeated until you acknowledge their reality or show that they are wrong. You have done neither.

    Personal testimonies prove nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I will wait for you to start a thread on the nature of God in whose image man has been created.
    I think it would be good if you started that thread since it was your idea and you know where you would like to start.

    Great chatting,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good morning John,

    There is a massive amount of evidence for LOCAL floods happening throughout the history of this planet. There is ZERO evidence for a global flood that killed all land animals as described in the Bible. Simple as that.


    It is rather curious that you gave no evidence for your assertion that "the evidence is overwhelming that there had to be, at one time, an astonishing amount of water which left it's mark." Why do you not believe it resulted from slow erosion over a period of millions of years?
    The eruption of Mt St Helen, in your own state was a small model, providing evidence of what a catastrophe can accomplish over a short time. It does not require millions of years as you assume.

    You don't seem to understand how science works. You can't just go by superficial appearances and leap to your preconceived conclusion based on an ancient text written by primitive superstitious people who were totally ignorant of how the world really works. The problem is that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts the flood story. Here are a few of the facts you will need to explain away if you want to believe in a global flood:
    [LIST][*]There is no evidence of a global extinction of all the land animals in the last hundred thousand years.
    The fossil record contains evidence of creatures being buried suddenly, along with well preserved timber. Sea creature remains found in mountainous regions. Species supposedly millions of years old in the fossil record, still with us today, unchanged by evolutionary processes.

    There is no evidence of a genetic bottle neck that would be expected if all modern animals descended from pairs in recent history.
    Human agriculture dates back to about 5,000 years and look at the diversity of the human race since that short period of time, how all women today have been genetically linked back to their common ancestor in recent times. If humanity can repopulate the entire earth in such a short time and with such diversity, how can you conclude animals unable.


    Ice cores from Antarctica are continuous over a span of a hundred thousand years. There is no evidence that Antarctica was deluged by a global flood.
    Can you prove that the polar ice caps are not the remainder of the Flood waters? Can you prove that the mountains were not thrust up and the great ocean trenches opened at the same time?


    The idea of the global flood is simply outside the realm of scientific possibility.
    Once again you claim science rules out a global flood, in what way?

    And besides that, there are all sorts of improbabilities, like polar bears and kangaroos traveling thousands of miles, even crossing oceans, to get to the Middle East to get on Noah's ark to prevent them from being killed by the flood.
    Can you disprove that there was only one super continent that was broken up by the catastrophic event of the flood and the uplift of mountains and separation in the great oceanic gorge caused a rapid drifting apart of the remainders?

    And what were the carnivores supposed to eat when they got off the ark? There is no end to the absurdities generated if we interpret the story literally. I can't imagine any serious adult believing it for a second.
    I believe it. I also believe the account that Jesus gave when He foretold of those who would be taken by surprise at another cataclysmic event which would parallel the time of Noah, and also Peter's statement when he referred to scoffers who think themselves wise in their disregard of the Biblical warnings.

    Please try to be a little more serious. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "whom to trust." As I explained in a recent post, I was trained in science and I REPRODUCED many scientific experiments myself. I measured the speed of light, the acceleration of gravity,and many similar things.
    And do you also believe in something from nothing as seriously as do other notable men of science?

    I don't take science "on faith." Creationists constantly misrepresent science as if it were as unfounded and absurd as their own religious beliefs and so must be "taken on faith" with no supporting evidence.
    Of course you do. You accept BB Cosmology based on the speed of light being a constant, contrary to the evidence it is not. How can you prove that the red shift from distant galaxies is an accurate measurement if the speed of light has degraded from its original state? You are simply putting your faith in an unknown quantity and quality. The Universe is degrading, it is winding down, it is reacting to the curse. The Universe we live in today is much different than the one God created in the beginning. How can you prove otherwise? I would think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would convince you, but no, you make an excuse that sometimes it operates in an open system and other time a closed system, whatever suits your theory. Tell me, is the Earth an open system or closed? Please explain your answer scientifically.


    You write as if you believe that cars, computers, and cell phones run on "faith" like Islam, Mormonism, and Christianity. This is getting ridiculous. Don't you care if your beliefs have any connection with truth and reality?
    What a total mis-characteration of what I believe. Science has accomplished many practical things, but it eventually runs into the curtain. The truth is expressed in the pages of God's Word, if science is at a loss to explain a Biblical event through natural phenomena, we should not be surprised and we should not exclude the possibility of the power of Almighty God to accomplish things we cannot. Your own life is an unexplained miracle. The origin of life is a miracle. The resurrection of Christ is a miracle.

    Al the best,

    Richard
    I remain, your friend.

    John

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    Actually, 2 floods, when Peter speaks of the one prior to Day One...
    Gen1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    2Pet3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
    Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

    The "replenish" in Gen 1:28 confirms this for me; likewise Jer4:23.

    No problem for dinosaurs and neanderthals to live in the pre-Adamic age. Right?
    The word "replenish" is a mistranslation that has misled careless Christian interpreters for centuries. I even heard J. Vernon McGee make this sophomoric error.

    Peter was talking about the flood of Noah, not some speculative flood between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2! We know this from context:

    2 Peter 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

    2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

    The first reference is explicitly about Noah's flood. The second reference refers to ungodly MEN that would die just like in Noah's flood.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855

    Won't be a 3rd !

    They went into the Ark by two's, and Jesus sent out the seventy by two's. Two brothers, two prophets (1K13), two Saul's, two Enoch's and Lamech's, Rachel & Leah, Mary & Martha, Peter & Paul, Elijah & Elisha, Esau & Jacob, Eldad & Medad, Jannes & Jambres, male & female, Old & New, Clean & Unclean, Good & Evil, Alpha & Omega, Theophilus-twice, the double portion, two-edged sword, and on and on and on...

    2 pillars (Boaz & Jachin) on Solomon's Temple, and 2 on the temple that Samson pulled down -- now in the NT we are a temple! Walking on 2 legs! Anybody 'pulled your leg' lately??

    Gen41:32 -- "By 2 it's established", BY GOD! ain't gonna be no more no more...
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    Good morning John,

    There is a massive amount of evidence for LOCAL floods happening throughout the history of this planet. There is ZERO evidence for a global flood that killed all land animals as described in the Bible. Simple as that.

    It is rather curious that you gave no evidence for your assertion that "the evidence is overwhelming that there had to be, at one time, an astonishing amount of water which left it's mark." Why do you not believe it resulted from slow erosion over a period of millions of years?
    The eruption of Mt St Helen, in your own state was a small model, providing evidence of what a catastrophe can accomplish over a short time. It does not require millions of years as you assume.
    There is no question about what a catastrophic flood could accomplish. That's not the problem with the idea of a global flood.

    And why didn't you respond to my question? You have not responded to the many problems that make the idea of a global flood impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    You don't seem to understand how science works. You can't just go by superficial appearances and leap to your preconceived conclusion based on an ancient text written by primitive superstitious people who were totally ignorant of how the world really works. The problem is that there is an overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts the flood story. Here are a few of the facts you will need to explain away if you want to believe in a global flood:

    • There is no evidence of a global extinction of all the land animals in the last hundred thousand years.
    • There is no evidence of a genetic bottle neck that would be expected if all modern animals descended from pairs in recent history.
    • Ice cores from Antarctica are continuous over a span of a hundred thousand years. There is no evidence that Antarctica was deluged by a global flood.
    • etc.

    The idea of the global flood is simply outside the realm of scientific possibility. And besides that, there are all sorts of improbabilities, like polar bears and kangaroos traveling thousands of miles, even crossing oceans, to get to the Middle East to get on Noah's ark to prevent them from being killed by the flood. And what were the carnivores supposed to eat when they got off the ark? There is no end to the absurdities generated if we interpret the story literally. I can't imagine any serious adult believing it for a second.
    The fossil record contains evidence of creatures being buried suddenly, along with well preserved timber. Sea creature remains found in mountainous regions. Species supposedly millions of years old in the fossil record, still with us today, unchanged by evolutionary processes.
    Yes, fossils usually are buried quickly because otherwise they would rot, be eaten by scavengers, or otherwise not preserved. But the geological strata most certainly were NOT laid down in a global flood, so your point is irrelevant.

    And why didn't you address my points? It is impossible that there was a global flood for many many reasons. I just listed three of the most obvious that anyone should be able to see and understand. What is your answer to those points?

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM
    There is no evidence of a genetic bottle neck that would be expected if all modern animals descended from pairs in recent history.


    Human agriculture dates back to about 5,000 years and look at the diversity of the human race since that short period of time, how all women today have been genetically linked back to their common ancestor in recent times. If humanity can repopulate the entire earth in such a short time and with such diversity, how can you conclude animals unable.
    I never said animals were "unable" to repopulate the planet! I said that there is NO EVIDENCE of a genetic bottle neck that would have occurred IF all the modern animals descended from pairs in recent history. This is why all your creationist arguments are so weak. They contradict VAST BODIES OF EVIDENCE. This shows, yet again, that creationists are radically ignorant of science. They make claims that are completely inconsistent with the overwhelming body of evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Ice cores from Antarctica are continuous over a span of a hundred thousand years. There is no evidence that Antarctica was deluged by a global flood.
    Can you prove that the polar ice caps are not the remainder of the Flood waters? Can you prove that the mountains were not thrust up and the great ocean trenches opened at the same time?
    Yes, absolutely! Ice core samples show ANNUAL LAYERS from yearly snowfall.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    The idea of the global flood is simply outside the realm of scientific possibility.
    Once again you claim science rules out a global flood, in what way?
    I have presented a few of the most obvious reasons, and you have not responded to them, let alone refuted them. And there are many more I could present. Have you given any evidence of any kind that supports a global flood? I have not seen any as yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    And besides that, there are all sorts of improbabilities, like polar bears and kangaroos traveling thousands of miles, even crossing oceans, to get to the Middle East to get on Noah's ark to prevent them from being killed by the flood.
    Can you disprove that there was only one super continent that was broken up by the catastrophic event of the flood and the uplift of mountains and separation in the great oceanic gorge caused a rapid drifting apart of the remainders?
    Of course not. There is good evidence that there have been supercontinents. But that doesn't help your theory at all because the supercontinents existed billions of years ago. They certainly did not exist in recent history! Here's what the wiki says:
    Most commonly, paleogeographers employ the term supercontinent to refer to a single landmass consisting of all the modern continents. The earliest known supercontinent was Vaalbara. It formed from proto-continents and was a supercontinent by 3.1 billion years ago (3.1 Ga). Vaalbara broke up ~2.8 Ga ago. The supercontinent Kenorland was formed ~2.7 Ga ago and then broke sometime after 2.5 Ga into the proto-continent Cratons called Laurentia, Baltica, Australia, and Kalahari. The supercontinent Columbia or Nuna formed during a period of 2.0–1.8 billion years and broke up about 1.5–1.3 billion years ago.[1][2]

    The supercontinent Rodinia formed about 1.1 billion years ago and broke up roughly 750 million years ago. One of the fragments included large parts of the continents now located in the southern hemisphere. Plate tectonics brought the fragments of Rodinia back together in a different configuration during the late Paleozoic era about 300 million years ago, forming the best-known supercontinent, Pangaea. Pangaea subsequently broke up into the northern and southern supercontinents, Laurasia and Gondwana, about 200 million years ago.
    All science is contrary to the idea of a recent global flood.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    And what were the carnivores supposed to eat when they got off the ark? There is no end to the absurdities generated if we interpret the story literally. I can't imagine any serious adult believing it for a second.
    I believe it. I also believe the account that Jesus gave when He foretold of those who would be taken by surprise at another cataclysmic event which would parallel the time of Noah, and also Peter's statement when he referred to scoffers who think themselves wise in their disregard of the Biblical warnings.
    Well, that only proves that Paul Simon got it right when he sang "A man sees what he wants to see, And disregards the rest."

    And you didn't answer my question (again!) - what did the carnivores eat after the flood?

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    Please try to be a little more serious. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "whom to trust." As I explained in a recent post, I was trained in science and I REPRODUCED many scientific experiments myself. I measured the speed of light, the acceleration of gravity,and many similar things.
    And do you also believe in something from nothing as seriously as do other notable men of science?
    Don't you believe that God created something from nothing?

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    I don't take science "on faith." Creationists constantly misrepresent science as if it were as unfounded and absurd as their own religious beliefs and so must be "taken on faith" with no supporting evidence.
    Of course you do. You accept BB Cosmology based on the speed of light being a constant, contrary to the evidence it is not. How can you prove that the red shift from distant galaxies is an accurate measurement if the speed of light has degraded from its original state? You are simply putting your faith in an unknown quantity and quality. The Universe is degrading, it is winding down, it is reacting to the curse. The Universe we live in today is much different than the one God created in the beginning. How can you prove otherwise? I would think that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would convince you, but no, you make an excuse that sometimes it operates in an open system and other time a closed system, whatever suits your theory. Tell me, is the Earth an open system or closed? Please explain your answer scientifically.
    Don't be absurd. I do NOT "believe" in BB cosmology like you believe in the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    And I don't "believe" in the constancy of the speed of light. The evidence for any change is very weak and not conclusive, and I measured the speed myself and found it to be consistent with the established results. And even if it were changing, the change is very slight so it would not significantly alter the calculated age of the universe. You are just straining at gnats while swallowing the camel of creationist absurdities.

    I find it outrageously ironic that creationists lift themselves up in such ludicrous pride and think to challenge the results of 21st century relativistic cosmology (which they don't even understand) in their efforts to support their dogmas based on ancient religious texts written by men utterly ignorant of all science.

    Your appeal to the 2nd law amplifies the absurdity of your war against science, truth, and reality beyond all measure. It is not an "excuse" when I EXPLAIN that the second law does not apply to an open system. If it did, you would be DEAD because your body fights decay ONLY by utilizing the low entropy food you take in. THE GROSS TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE IGNORANCE and WILLFUL DECEPTION of creationists on this point really gets under my skin because my Ph.D. dissertation was on the topic of the 2nd Law in Quantum Systems. I know what I'm talking about when I tell you that corrupt creationists have made a FOOL of you and all Christians who have believed their lies.

    The earth is on OPEN SYSTEM because it receives LOW ENTROPY ENERGY FROM THE SUN.

    You can prove the absurdity of your comment to yourself in a nano-second. Imagine that the earth were a CLOSED SYSTEM. This would mean that no energy comes in from any source. There would be no input from the sun. Life would be impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    You write as if you believe that cars, computers, and cell phones run on "faith" like Islam, Mormonism, and Christianity. This is getting ridiculous. Don't you care if your beliefs have any connection with truth and reality?
    What a total mis-characteration of what I believe. Science has accomplished many practical things, but it eventually runs into the curtain. The truth is expressed in the pages of God's Word, if science is at a loss to explain a Biblical event through natural phenomena, we should not be surprised and we should not exclude the possibility of the power of Almighty God to accomplish things we cannot. Your own life is an unexplained miracle. The origin of life is a miracle. The resurrection of Christ is a miracle.
    You have CONSTANTLY implied that I "believe" in science in the same way that religious people "believe" in their religion. If you now say that you no longer believe that, then GREAT! I'm glad we finally destroyed that false characterization of my understanding of science.

    We are not talking about "miracles." If miracles happened that left no evidence, then neither you nor I have any REASON to believe in them. Your have never given any reason for your outrageous presumption that the Bible is God's inerrant Word. What if you are wrong? If the Bible contains error and you attribute it to God, then you are calling God a liar. Doesn't this concern you at all?

    Quote Originally Posted by jce View Post
    I remain, your friend.

    John
    I'm very glad for that. But I do wish that you would work with me to get your feet on the ground of reality. I don't understand how you could base your eternal life on things that are demonstrably false. You have NOTHING to gain by aligning yourself with deliberately deceptive creationists.

    All the best to you, my good friend,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •