Ok, I appreciate your honesty.
Now, let me challenge your belief.
Did God create man to live for eternity?
If he chooses life.
Ok, I appreciate your honesty.
Now, let me challenge your belief.
Did God create man to live for eternity?
Do you think it means that they will cease to exist?
If he chooses life.
Yes, but was the original intent (pre-Fall) for man to live forever?
Are you saying you're a Calvinist?It's our choice.
Adam didn't fall, he only sinned. We all have.
It wasn't a fall, it was by design.
Are you saying you're a Calvinist?
Get back to us when you have something relevant to say.Darwinists hate ideas.
It's our choice.
Adam didn't fall, he only sinned. We all have.
It wasn't a fall, it was by design.
So what do you mean when you say, "it was by design"?I don't know anything about Calvinism.
Calvanism is the belief that your whole life is predetermined by your god, and you are like a greyhound (well, not in the case of your avatar, obviously) running around a track following a lure. Your own free will is essentially irrelevant because whatever you think yourself, your destiny in your life and the afterlife has been already laid down, and you are just following the pattern to hell, or not.I don't know anything about Calvinism.
Explain it to me.
Good question. The stuff that makes up atoms, the matter, is essentially the same thing as what we call energy. The energy that makes up matter was converted from the gravitational energy of the inflation at the beginning of the universe. Matter is all borrowed from the Big Bang.Atoms are the building blocks of the physical universe.
Where did atoms come from?
Don't give me grief about my name. I've had enough grief over it already.
Look. I can have a serious conversation with you, or we can both just goof around with each other. I'm partial to either way (I don't take myself to seriously). But I don't like to mix the two. I'll take our discussion as seriously as you take it. So you can reply with more goofball stuff and half-baked accusations (to which I will reply similarly), you can put your money where your mouth is and put down some rock solid evidence (which I will take a good honest look at), or you can go on your merry way.
I've been on this board for a fair few years now. In all that time I have found it impossible to have a serious conversation with Stripe.
Get back to us when you have something relevant to say.
And you still haven't answered my question with an answer appropriate for the question.
Was God's intent, when He created man, for man to live forever with Him?
So what do you mean when you say, "it was by design"?
Good question. The stuff that makes up atoms, the matter, is essentially the same thing as what we call energy.
Romans 5, 1 Cor. 15 and more tell us that Jesus went to Calvary for the descendants of first Adam.The new heaven and earth is after the earth is destroyed.
The rebellious angels are no longer cursed. Jesus took their curse.
All in the new heaven and new earth will have been reconciled. (Reconciliation is for those who love Him 1 Cor. 2:9, James 2:5.} Jesus tells us that the fallen / demonic angels will be in eternal fire. Matt. 25:41Paul said those in heaven and earth have been reconciled.
You know what I figure? I figure if you are interested in true stats, you can type. If not? Not really a big deal (I provided a link in my post to another in thread immediately after answering you if you are interested).Pew does a lot of research. You're going to have to be much more specific.
It is basically your worldview, Jose. It is in your sig. It is in your conversation. As an atheist doing science, you've your own doctrinal bents.I still don't know what you're referring to by "atheistic science". Can you give an example?
I think I do agree, but not probably like you are thinking. If someone tells you answers, you 'might' go the long way to figure out how that figure came up, but you could also just take it at face value. It certainly doesn't mean one can't look, if they have a desire to do so, using the scientific method.Then I would expect you to agree that anything like....
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.
...isn't at all scientific.
No, not at all. I GENERALLY think people who post sigs, mean it. If you don't, you 'might' consider changing it. Think "moniker," Jose. It is hard to get past it WHEN you portray the sig in your demeanor and discussion/debate structure. Sorry, Jose. You wrote and continue to write it yourself and it sticks. Whatever humor MUST be your own fault or doing, or however you like to think of it. So there it is and it is what it is: No nerve, just how I continually think of you, by your own hand.You have no idea how funny it is to me that you've never been able to get past that quote. It obviously struck a nerve.
Not necessarily theistic evolutionists, though I'd suspect them too. Nutshell: ANYONE who is a Christian and believes Christ created everything, is a 'creationist.' It would include anybody that believes God did anything to make life etc. happen. Your wife is a creationist if she is a Christian.It looks like you're trying to put theistic evolutionists in the category of creationists, while excluding them from the category of evolutionists. Do I have that right?
I provided a link that says 'basically unchanged' so it looks MORE like wishful thinking to me.Sorry,not sure what the 10% is referring to.
What I see in those data is a radical change in the youngest demographic group, one that shows that christianity and creationism are dying in the US, literally. 50% of the population overall accept some version of evolution, even if it is a god-directed version, whatever they mean by that, but that's what they believe. Add together the figures for the youngest group, and it is 65% for some kind of evolution.
I'm not complaining of course, the promotion of creationism is a form of child abuse when it is promoted in school boards, there is no question about that. In my opinion, the death of christianity is also something to be encouraged, for the sake of humanity.
Stuart
I got into a discussion about young Earth creationism recently. My position was that YECism is completely debunked because it is obvious that there are objects in the night sky that are much older than 6,000 years. For instance, the galaxy Andromeda is roughly 2.5 million light years away. That means that when we look at Andromeda, we don't see it as it is today. We see what it looked like two-and-a-half million years ago. (It takes the light from that galaxy that long to reach us.)
My friend, who is a Christian (but not a YEC) agreed with me, but introduced me to a bit of apologetics that says this: just as God made Adam in a mature state, so too he made the cosmos appear mature. I guess this works, but it sounds a little bit like squaring the circle. After all, in doing this, God has given anyone with a telescope very good reason to doubt the literal accounts in Genesis. My friend even added a nice counter argument along this same vein: we can see stars that are much farther than 6,000 light years years away enter their dying phase. By creationist logic, when we see this, we are in fact seeing stars die that were never born in the first place. That makes no sense!
Unless you are going to see God as a cosmic practical joker, the "mature universe" apologetics are not very plausible. But my reason for starting this thread wasn't just to push that point. My question is for YECs: Isn't it reasonable for a person to conclude that the universe is older than 6,000 years? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that it is. Can you really fault anyone for coming to that very sensible conclusion? After all, even if the accounts in Genesis ARE literally true, God went through a lot of trouble to make it look otherwise. Whether it turns out to be true or not, isn't it reasonable to doubt young earth creationism?