Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?

[Arthur Brain]

Don't dodge the question, Arty.

Is the Bible literally correct when it says that the sun is not a god, but that the sun is a light?

The sun is a massive ball of predominantly hydrogen gas.

Again, this coming from your subjective (not objective) point of view.

Get the point yet?

Now that's some irony right there...

:deadhorse:

As before, it simply isn't science.

Genetic fallacy. Who or where an argument comes from does not affect the veracity of the argument.

It does where it comes to science. Science demands more than an "argument".

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course there's allegory in it.

That doesn't mean that it's all allegory, nor does it mean that some of it isn't literal or didn't actually happen, and it certainly doesn't mean it isn't true.

So how about you explain which bits are allegorical then?

Of course He could.

But of course, that's not what the Bible says He did, and for a reason.

Yes, it would make more sense for it to be mapped out rather than saying everything was brought about instantaneously for the audience of the time. Further, the use of allegory could be recognized by audiences through the ages, which it was.

This is a straw man, you're arguing against the woodenly literal position, which I do not hold to, nor does any other creationist in this thread.

The word "rest" in Genesis 2 means to cease or desist from doing.

Moses is just saying that God ended His creating on the sixth day and did not create more on the sreventh day.

It's not saying He took a break because He was tired. It's saying that He stopped creating.

You take it literally enough to deny the possibility of the earth being older than ten thousand years. Again, as above.

Well, no, it doesn't, because your attempt at an explanation is false.

Words have meaning, Arty, and I'm sure you know this, but the Bible wasn't originally written in English, but in Hebrew in the Old Testament, and Greek (and some Aramaic) in the New Testament.

Because you say so? Pass.

Of course I'm aware of that, just as I'm aware of poetic narrative and construct.

And to what, exactly, are you referring to here?

That given the time of the Bible being written, there would be no point in going to any sort of scientific detail that couldn't be understood. You even agree on that don't you?

I never said there wasn't, Arty.

Then as above, explain the parts that are allegorical and be specific.

You didn't answer the question above. So I'll ask again.

How do two genealogies that follow two different branches of the same family tree of Jesus Christ invalidate what Genesis says about Creation?



Symbolic, yes. Non-literal? NO, of course not!

Or are you asserting that one person can't have family trees that branch off and eventually rejoin several generations later?

If they're both genealogies from the original family tree then they should be identical.

As opposed to reading it willy-nilly?

Sure.

Unlike you, I have a systematic theology that provides structure to my beliefs.

It allows me to look at the text and understand it's meaning based on the context of what is being said, because words have specific meanings that usually don't change even if they are placed in different contexts.

Oh, a "systematic theology" that provides "structure to your beliefs"? Initially, that sounds impressive in it's own way and then just a rather pompous way of saying you have a better understanding of how to read scripture and understand it than people without such a "system". I've been in a fundamentalist church earlier in my life and was taught the same, Bible study classes as to how to properly ascertain the meaning of passages in context and such along with not questioning what was taught. Threw off those shackles a long time ago, thanks.

I don't.

The context of the word or phrase does.

Then you should realize why allegory has been recognized through the ages and why most Christians accept an old earth. Never mind the 'appeal to popularity' stuff again as there's no reason to take your insistence that you don't define things that suit your own beliefs.

Again, I don't define anything. Nor should you.

The context of a word or phrase (along with the definition of the word itself and how it is used) defines its meaning.

Simply read the text for what it says, and gather your meaning based on what it says, rather than what you want it to say.

Supra.

 

[7djengo7]

Don't dodge the question, Arty.

Is the Bible literally correct when it says that the sun is not a god, but that the sun is a light?

<NO ANSWER>

Why are you such a persistent and shameless weasel when it comes to (among other things) being asked a simple yes-or-no question, like what JR just asked you? Your insecurities regarding the things you think and/or say severely cripple you from conducting yourself rationally on TOL. Do you really think that nobody notices your stonewalling against the questions you are asked?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why are you such a persistent and shameless weasel when it comes to (among other things) being asked a simple yes-or-no question, like what JR just asked you? Your insecurities regarding the things you think and/or say severely cripple you from conducting yourself rationally on TOL. Do you really think that nobody notices your stonewalling against the questions you are asked?

What are you twittering on about now? The sun isn't literally a god. The sun is a massive ball of predominantly hydrogen gas. How's that not answering the question? It gives out light, heat and then some.

:kookoo:

 

[Stripe]

What "slew of accusations" would they be exactly?

What your idea of "reasoning" and "compromise" are is anyone's guess given your track record of stupid "Darwinist" tropes and mock smileys as "response". Your history is on record here Stripe. You had ample opportunity to engage rationally when confronted with Alate and Barb's arguments. Instead, you either resorted to the above or kept going on about Walt Brown. The hydroplate theory was sank by Alate and you had nothing.

It must really suck having to wake up every morning knowing that you have to get through another day being this dumb. :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

The onus is not on me here Stripe.

The onus is indeed upon you.

You assert that Adam is not a historical figure, despite the genealogy presenting him as one. That you reject the Biblical account and somehow think it's my job to do a five minute Web search to discover why the two lists diverge at King David and reunite at Joseph is not our problem. Sure, you might have justified to yourself that you don't have to answer our challenge, but you have done nothing to promote your belief over ours.

The Bible presents Adam as a real, historical figure. If you want to disagree with the Bible on this matter, you don't gain points for your side by pretending to have defended a challenge issued to you.

Like I say, you contribute nothing. You have no sense of what is required for a rational discussion. Everything you post boils down to insults and irrational, question-begging nonsense.

Do you like being nothing but noise?

 

[Stripe]

There hasn't been anything that has "utterly disproved" the theory of evolution.

The No. 1 disproof of Darwinism is from entropy.

 

[Stripe]

Time isn't restrained by human standards in the Bible. A day being as a thousand years for a start.

:rotfl:

Darwin-lovers are forever quoting 2 Peter 3 as if it helps them.

It doesn't:

Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying: “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

See those bolded parts? That's you. See the part you claim justifies "billions of years"? That is quite plainly a description of God as patient.

Not if you're talking about the original and literal family tree they shouldn't. They should both read exactly the same.

Because you say so? Did you not read the post that describes the differences in approach among the gospels? You can do a simple Google search to determine why the genealogies diverge at King David and reunite at Joseph.

Or you could keep believing that writers of the time who placed great importance on their heritage and the records of them were somehow able to ignore the "glaring errors" that you spotted. lain:

 

[Jonahdog]

The No. 1 disproof of Darwinism is from entropy.

Please explain

 

[Stripe]

Please explain

Dog doesn't understand entropy.

:mock: :dog:

 

[Jonahdog]

Dog doesn't understand entropy.

:mock: :dog:

Stripe is unable or unwilling to explain his claim. Not unusual. Stripe made a claim/statement about entropy and "Darwinism" by which I the it he means the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. Just asking for an explanation.

 

[Yorzhik]

Don't dodge the question, Arty.

I was on another forum that moderators would identify unanswered questions that could receive a simple answer. Those moderators would then restrict the poster to answer the question on that thread. Sock puppets would get banned, and the next post allowed would be monitored by the moderators to answer the question before it was posted. Since the moderators didn't have infinite time, they would more often than not only give the poster a single chance to answer or get banned, but it was at their discretion. Bans started at 3 days and went up from there at the discretion of the moderator.

I realize we can't do this on TOL because the resources necessary are too much, but it sure made for a lot of productive discussion. I got caught not answering a question and they were happy to get an answer that explained why I found it a disadvantage in the argument to answer either way the context would allow, which included my preferred answer. The discussion was fruitful after that.

People like Arty, Jonah, Anni, Russa, Quip, and a few others would need this kind of discipline to offer anything useful.

 

[ok doser]

I was on another forum that moderators would identify unanswered questions that could receive a simple answer. Those moderators would then restrict the poster to answer the question on that thread. Sock puppets would get banned, and the next post allowed would be monitored by the moderators to answer the question before it was posted. Since the moderators didn't have infinite time, they would more often than not only give the poster a single chance to answer or get banned, but it was at their discretion. Bans started at 3 days and went up from there at the discretion of the moderator.

I realize we can't do this on TOL because the resources necessary are too much, but it sure made for a lot of productive discussion. I got caught not answering a question and they were happy to get an answer that explained why I found it a disadvantage in the argument to answer either way the context would allow, which included my preferred answer. The discussion was fruitful after that.

People like Arty, Jonah, Anni, Russa, Quip, and a few others would need this kind of discipline to offer anything useful.

The problem is Yorzhik that too many people here are only interested in misrepresenting the other person's position. They're not interested in having a disciplined productive discussion. Their main interest is in trolling.

 

[Jonahdog]

I was on another forum that moderators would identify unanswered questions that could receive a simple answer. Those moderators would then restrict the poster to answer the question on that thread. Sock puppets would get banned, and the next post allowed would be monitored by the moderators to answer the question before it was posted. Since the moderators didn't have infinite time, they would more often than not only give the poster a single chance to answer or get banned, but it was at their discretion. Bans started at 3 days and went up from there at the discretion of the moderator.

I realize we can't do this on TOL because the resources necessary are too much, but it sure made for a lot of productive discussion. I got caught not answering a question and they were happy to get an answer that explained why I found it a disadvantage in the argument to answer either way the context would allow, which included my preferred answer. The discussion was fruitful after that.

People like Arty, Jonah, Anni, Russa, Quip, and a few others would need this kind of discipline to offer anything useful.

So, would a moderator require Stripe to answer my question and explain his statement?

 

[Yorzhik]

The problem is Yorzhik that too many people here are only interested in misrepresenting the other person's position. They're not interested in having a disciplined productive discussion. Their main interest is in trolling.

Right. And because of the way they handled answering questions directly there was a lower number of trolls on that site and the discussion was more productive.

 

[ok doser]

Right. And because of the way they handled answering questions directly there was a lower number of trolls on that site and the discussion was more productive.

Instead, what we have is trolls like anna playing "gotcha" to a contributing member: https://theologyonline.com/forum/pol...96#post2770996

... and their retarded troll buddies like barbie patting them on the back: https://theologyonline.com/forum/pol...22#post2771022


If I'm a noob checking out the site and see that, I'd bail

 

[Right Divider]

Sure, but not necessarily one constrained by the parameters of a belief system, like YEC. There's enough clues as to how time isn't restrained by human standards in the Bible. A day being as a thousand years for a start.

This stupidity has been addressed before.

2Pe 3:8 KJV But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Do you even know what the CONTEXT is there? Apparently not!

 

[Arthur Brain]

It must really suck having to wake up every morning knowing that you have to get through another day being this dumb. :chuckle:

You seem to deal with it after a fashion.

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

The onus is indeed upon you.

You assert that Adam is not a historical figure, despite the genealogy presenting him as one. That you reject the Biblical account and somehow think it's my job to do a five minute Web search to discover why the two lists diverge at King David and reunite at Joseph is not our problem. Sure, you might have justified to yourself that you don't have to answer our challenge, but you have done nothing to promote your belief over ours.

The Bible presents Adam as a real, historical figure. If you want to disagree with the Bible on this matter, you don't gain points for your side by pretending to have defended a challenge issued to you.

Like I say, you contribute nothing. You have no sense of what is required for a rational discussion. Everything you post boils down to insults and irrational, question-begging nonsense.

Do you like being nothing but noise?

Why do they differ at all if they're both supposed to document the genealogy of the original man?

So, yes, the onus is on you to explain that.

After your history on here where it comes to insults and the like then pffffft...

Who are you?

:idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

The No. 1 disproof of Darwinism is from entropy.

The theory of evolution isn't "Darwinism" and you need to provide something besides "from entropy" as if that counts as anything in itself.