|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Apr 10, 2006 20:00:17 GMT -5
If your only problem is that I keep attributing human characteristics to God, then I suggest you stop arguing. Humans are, last time I checked, the closest entity that we know of in intelligence to this infinitely smart and timelessly ancient incomparable being. Since Humans are the closest approximation (even if you have to carry it out to the googleth decimal point just to make us different from slugs when compared to God), then it's what I'm going to use until I can come up with a better thing to compare Him to. So I expect that I'll continue to foolishly attribute humanity to this divine being, for better or for worse. Sorry. :-)
As for Revelation, I HAVE read it. And I've gotta say, I don't see it saying that God knows everything, merely that He knows that these certain events *will* happen. Outside of those prophecies, I bet he doesn't know exactly what decision's I'll make on that day aside from those that are 1) important, or 2) fundamental. Who's to say how much choice Satan will have in the matter (I mean, scripture ALSO tells us that Satan knows his scripture. If Satan had any choice, I'd assume that he'd do everything in his power to keep things from unfolding as they do in Revelation.)?
|
|
|
|
Post by spacechief on Apr 11, 2006 3:57:37 GMT -5
The basis of his theory, microevolution, most definitely still stands up. That is an absolute scientific fact. However we can't credit Darwin with that. The theory of microevolution had been around for awhile but he really put his name on it when he introduced it as proof for macroevolution. As for Genesis, well I think it makes just as much sense as any other theory ever made. I mean the origin of God and the origin of some random molecule that exploded into a universe takes the same level of faith either way to believe. You can't credit Darwin with microevolution?! What? Of course you can. People didn't see microevolution as "evolution", if you catch my meaning, until Darwin came forth with his theories. He was the one who came up with natural selection, and if he cam up with that then how did the theory of evolution pre-date Darwin? Easy, it can't. Macroevolution isa much slower, much more complex process than microevolition, becase of this we cannot study it actually happening under a microscope. And it looks as though you consider this new transitional species as a hoax. What if it isn't? What if it is a transitional species? If you honestly think the story of a God making the earth in seven days, that we all descend from Adam and Even and that a serpent literally tricked the first humans into eating a forbidden fruit causing them to be cast out of the Garden of Eden makes more sense than the theory of evolution, then I don't know what more I can say. All that said, I do think that the universe was "created" for lack of better word, but whatever created it would be far removed from the anthropomorphic concept of God. Darwin was in a race to release his book. Another scientist was making a book with extremely similar theories to his. Darwin was the culmination of decades of postulations and hypotheses. As for macroevolution, well anyone who can believe in something that has never been seen has to have just as much faith as any Christian. So basically macroevolution is just as much of a religion as Christianity is. You admitted that yourself in saying it has never been observed. How can anything that has never been observed be a fact? The answer is: faith. |
|
|
|
Post by kte18 on Apr 11, 2006 7:04:44 GMT -5
Macroevolution isa much slower, much more complex process than microevolition, becase of this we cannot study it actually happening under a microscope. And it looks as though you consider this new transitional species as a hoax. What if it isn't? What if it is a transitional species? So Darwinism has been around for some 100 years, but for some reason every "evidence" thus far was a hoax. What makes this one so special? All the things that they found and thought as transitional species have been found to just be new species. One would think by now they would have found millions of transitional species. But alas they have not. I do not believe they ever will because they simply do not exist. Show me several real transitional spieces that won't turn into a hoax in the next five years and I will believe you. |
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Apr 11, 2006 10:33:01 GMT -5
Also, if Satan knows he's going to fail, then what's the point of Revelation? Is Satan just Mr. Sluggsworth (or whatever his name is) from Willy Wonka? God is a pretty mean guy to trick and confuse everyone the way he does. Yes. How dare he premeditate something against Satan.  |
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Apr 11, 2006 17:02:56 GMT -5
You missed my point. Revelation maps out Satan's rise and fall. If what is written is true, then does that mean that Christians know Satan's fate better than Satan? Or is Satan just stubborn? There's also the third possibility that he doesn't have much choice in the matter.  |
|
|
|
Post by spacechief on Apr 12, 2006 3:01:42 GMT -5
You have your timelines way screwed up. The Genesis story is by far the oldest story of the beginnings of earth. That's a proven fact. Every other creation story is based of it, it's not based off of them.
It may take an enormouse amount of faith, but it doesn't take a lack of common sense. Evolution does. With all the proof against it, you have to have faith and stubborness. You have continously said that we have never observed macroevolution and that evolution has huge flaws. Well guess what, we may have never observed an intelligent creation of a planet but so far, despite thousands of years of trying, no proof can be documented against Creation. Only the dogmatic evolution blabber like "It's not science" "It's just a myth" has been brought against it. Simple logic says that if you have a theory that has no proof against it and a theory with tons of proof against it, then the first theory is the true one.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacechief on Apr 12, 2006 10:22:41 GMT -5
You have your timelines way screwed up. The Genesis story is by far the oldest story of the beginnings of earth. That's a proven fact. Every other creation story is based of it, it's not based off of them. WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!!!!!!? Are you kidding me!? We have older creation myths than Genesis! The oldest being the Mesopotamian myths that were taken from Sumerian literature "The Seven Tablets of The Creation", "The Epic Of Gilgamesh" and "Atrahasis". If you think the Hebrews were before the Sumerians, then I don't know what timeline you follow. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_MythologyI have read the myths myself, and they closesly resemble the Genesis story. For example, "Atrahasis" contains a guy that builds an ark to save everyone from a flood that the gods start....hmmmm, sound familiar? If Genesis didn't borrow from these, then it's just an extraordinary coincidence I guess. So it's impossible that the Genesis account was true and it was a forgery. Could it be that the world was created and all the stories were around and just told in different ways? Of course then your next question is "Then wouldn't Moses' writings have been just as warped?" Well the answer is no because God directly told him what happened and weeded out what was true and what was false. But I suppose if evolution is true (which it obviously is) then it was all just a myth. The Biblical story of creation was passed down for generations before Moses finally wrote it all down. But I suppose if you are convinced that there was no special creation and despite it's gaping holes evolution is right then there is no convincing you of anything. Any point I make can be easily countered by a "that's not true", because your worldview simply demands that it is not true. So does mine. At least I'm willing to admit it. I'm willing to say that no matter what happens, short of Moses coming as a ghost to me and telling me he made everything up, I will stick by creation. Many evolutionists like to pretend they are open minded when they are just as close minded as Christians. |
|
|
|
Post by spacechief on Apr 13, 2006 4:01:31 GMT -5
So it's impossible that the Genesis account was true and it was a forgery. Could it be that the world was created and all the stories were around and just told in different ways? Of course then your next question is "Then wouldn't Moses' writings have been just as warped?" Well the answer is no because God directly told him what happened and weeded out what was true and what was false. But I suppose if evolution is true (which it obviously is) then it was all just a myth. The Biblical story of creation was passed down for generations before Moses finally wrote it all down. But I suppose if you are convinced that there was no special creation and despite it's gaping holes evolution is right then there is no convincing you of anything. Any point I make can be easily countered by a "that's not true", because your worldview simply demands that it is not true. So does mine. At least I'm willing to admit it. I'm willing to say that no matter what happens, short of Moses coming as a ghost to me and telling me he made everything up, I will stick by creation. Many evolutionists like to pretend they are open minded when they are just as close minded as Christians. What are you talking about. A moment ago you said that it was a proven fact that Genesis was the oldest creation myth at all, and now that I proved to you that Genesis is NOT the oldest creation myth you try to debunk me by saying that God seperated the fact from the fiction while at the same time speaking directly to Moses! That's not logic, that's tradition and assumption. (It is also debated that Moses didn't write Genesis but it was merely attributed to him). Also, you say that the Genesis story was passed down before Moses wrote it (assuming he did), and this is of course true, but the original of creation stories, as we so far know (there may be older) come from the Sumerians, which were way before the Hebrews. And it just so happens that many aspects of Genesis are uncanny in their similarities to the Sumerian writings. There are gaping holes in evolution, and I do not accept it as absolute truth. I am open to other theories and perhaps "intervention" or a grand creator of the universe. But I highly doubt that all of the answers are within the Bible, and I accept the theory of evolution to make more sense than that we all come from two people who were tricked by a snake. If you had not been born a Christian, then you would sense that these were myths as well. I'm not close-minded. I disagree a lot with Darwin and especially Leaky, whom is one of the most influential evolutionists ever. And I disagree with him a lot, and I also disagree with the standard humanistic world view as well, and in fact, if you read my rant about how nobody follows Christ correctly, you will find that my view of humanity is closer to Original Sin and redemption than "Original Goodness" and corruption which was fathered by one of the earliest humanists Rosseau and continues to influence liberal thought and philosophy today. In fact, one of my all-time favorite Christians and one of the most influencial philosophers to my world view is St. Augustine, one of the most influential Christian writers ever. I think that you're making assumptions here regarding my character and world view. First off it is not a myth. A myth has no supported evidence. The Biblical account of creation has evidence supporting it and therefore is not a myth. Plain and simple. Secondly, you are the one making assumptions about my worldview. How do you know that I was born into a Christian family? I could have been a murderer that got saved in prison. All I'm saying is don't accuse me of assuming your worldview when you are assuming mine. All I'm trying to say is what I've been trying to say my whole life: Evolution and Creation are equals. Niether can be proved. However they can be disproved, and in my opinion evolution already has been. I'm close minded because I know one thing is wrong. And if evolution is wrong then there is only one alternative: Creation. Plain and simple as that. |
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Apr 13, 2006 18:50:37 GMT -5
And if evolution is wrong then there is only one alternative: Creation. Plain and simple as that. Why only two alternatives? And which creationism? literal? evolutionary creationism? Christian? Judaic? Islamic? Hindu? And which evolution? Lamarckian? Darwinian? Revised Darwinian? Gap theory Darwinian or Steady Darwinian? |
|
