Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 70
  1. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,303
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement



    And here's RC Sproul, another giant amongst fundamental pastors with a
    former mega church and President and Chancelor of Dallas Theological Seminary
    in Dallas who's a short birther and author of 60 books. Actually he switched from being a long birther like some of the scientists mentioned above. See why.

    You can't call these dudes un-educated.

    http://creation.com/famous-evangelic...mind-rc-sproul

    And finally from these:

    Paul Steidl, an astronomer, has noted:
    [N]o astronomers would ever think of the big bang as the creation event of Genesis. The big bang was invented specifically for the purpose of doing away with the creation event. An astronomer would laugh at the naivety of anyone who chose to equate the two events (1979, 197).
    Evolutionist Paul Davies, in a discussion of the big bang, says that this theory of origins “differs greatly in detail from the biblical version.” He then quotes Ernan McMullin of Notre Dame University:
    What one cannot say is, first, that the Christian doctrine of creation “supports” the Big Bang model, or second, that the Big Bang model “supports” the doctrine of creation (1983, 17-20).


    http://www.christiancourier.com/arti...y-vs-gods-word


    And I just came across that the great reformist John Calvin as well as St Augustine believed in the 24 hr 6-day creation of Genesis.

    We are fundamentalists and believe in a literal interpretation of scripture and that it is
    inerrant but Greg is right, many in the church do not. Just another of thousands of issues Christians argue over every day.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-04-2012 at 12:20 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  2. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,228

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    I don't know. The Bible says God created the earth in 6 days and then there
    was light
    .

    Scripture, please.

    First off, it says 6 yoms, and once again, if Moses meant long period of time there was one and only one Hebrew available to him at that time, yom.

    As for me and evoutionists, I guarantee I can go toe to toe with an evolutionist in a debate better than you or MacArthur.

    Besides, anybody who gives more than a minute or two of thought to the ideaS can see these are two separate ideaS. The Big Bang is one, evolution another.

    As for RC Sproul, I love the guy and watch him all of the time, but I have two fundamental differences with him. This and also he is a Calvinist, which just does not square with Romans 1:20. If Calvinism is true all non-believers have an excellent excuse in that they were not chosen by God to be given the gift of faith and thus are not responsible and should not be sent to hell.

    That said, despite the differences I love the man and his dedication and teaching, and also would never call him a compromiser.




  3. #51

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    As someone on this board who is as staunch an anti-organized religion guy as any, there is nothing about the big bang that eliminates a creator. As a matter of fact, from a completely non-secular, philosophical point of view it even lends credence to the idea.
    One philosophical proof of god is that this world is nothing but cause and effect relationships. Scientifically going back to the beginning(big bang) one gets to an effect without a known cause. The "original cause" almost HAS TO BE supernatural in nature as it preceded everything.
    That one train of thought has converted me from agnostic to deist. I never completely denied the existance of a God, but now I am inclined to believe there is one.




  4. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906
    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    As someone on this board who is as staunch an anti-organized religion guy as any, there is nothing about the big bang that eliminates a creator. As a matter of fact, from a completely non-secular, philosophical point of view it even lends credence to the idea.
    One philosophical proof of god is that this world is nothing but cause and effect relationships. Scientifically going back to the beginning(big bang) one gets to an effect without a known cause. The "original cause" almost HAS TO BE supernatural in nature as it preceded everything.
    That one train of thought has converted me from agnostic to deist. I never completely denied the existance of a God, but now I am inclined to believe there is one.
    Anyone willing to look at the facts at hand with an iota of objectivity and logic, has to in their heart of hearts arrive at the same conclusion. However, no amount of logic and reason are a match for denial.

    What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)
    Last edited by Sirdowski; 03-04-2012 at 06:25 PM.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  5. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,228

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by jonboy79 View Post
    As someone on this board who is as staunch an anti-organized religion guy as any, there is nothing about the big bang that eliminates a creator. As a matter of fact, from a completely non-secular, philosophical point of view it even lends credence to the idea.
    One philosophical proof of god is that this world is nothing but cause and effect relationships. Scientifically going back to the beginning(big bang) one gets to an effect without a known cause. The "original cause" almost HAS TO BE supernatural in nature as it preceded everything.
    That one train of thought has converted me from agnostic to deist. I never completely denied the existance of a God, but now I am inclined to believe there is one.
    You have joined many scientists in this field.

    Next, investigate the historocity of the New testament documents, doing so has converted a number of atheists like Lee Stroble originally setting out to prove them false.




  6. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,228

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post

    It is an established scientific theory (a theory being an established and tested concept that is supported by evidence. There are very few "facts" involved in higher science) that the big bang theory was not only the phenomenon that created our universe, but also that time itself did not exist prior to the big bang. If time didn't exist before the bang, then logically the first event in the history of the universe is the big bang. It is the start point for the universe.
    Just a point, but the Big Bang did not create anything, it is a description (and a poor one) of how the universe began. The cause, or Cause, is not the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the event, not the cause.




  7. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,303
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    .

    Scripture, please.

    Genesis 1.

    First off, it says 6 yoms, and once again, if Moses meant long period of time there was one and only one Hebrew available to him at that time, yom.

    Again, I mentioned about 100 other places in scripture where it is used as a 24-hr period so why is
    Genesis the exception. Context is everything and
    MacArthur did a better job of anyone explaining things in the original language. Pastors have to learn them
    in seminary training. My brother's Bible is in the original language so when he's preaching he says the Hebrew word for this is that and the Greek word for that is this and so on. .


    As for me and evolutionists, I guarantee I can go toe to toe with an evolutionist in a debate better than you or MacArthur.

    I love your humility-lol.

    Besides, anybody who gives more than a minute or two of thought to the ideaS can see these are two separate ideaS. The Big Bang is one, evolution another.

    As for RC Sproul, I love the guy and watch him all of the time, but I have two fundamental differences with him. This and also he is a Calvinist, which just does not square with Romans 1:20. If Calvinism is true all non-believers have an excellent excuse in that they were not chosen by God to be given the gift of faith and thus are not responsible and should not be sent to hell.

    Choice is another issue altogher. I don't agree with
    all 5 points in TULIP - just the T, I and P. I always
    thought you were Armenian-sp. I'm with him on
    U and L. When Jesus said I chose you he usually spoke
    to small groups of people. He didn't use that word on
    the sermon on the mount in front of 5,000 people He
    used it on the disciples when he chose them.


    That said, despite the differences I love the man and his dedication and teaching, and also would never call him a compromiser.

    A lot of ministers change doctrinal positions over a career. Sproul is also a partial preterist who believes the tribulation already occurred and Nero was the anti-Christ.

    He's my brother's hero and when everyone else is
    listening to music on their iPod, he's listening to
    RC Sproul.


    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Sproul also mentions Christ's geneology back to
    Adam. Thats about 20 generations which fit nicely
    into the short bith time frame. The gaps make it
    impossible to fit that in.


    If we take the genealogies that go back to Adam, however, and if we make allowances for certain gaps in them (which could certainly be there), it remains a big stretch from 4004 BC to 4.6 billion years ago. (pp. 121–122)

    ‘A big stretch’! Yes, it would be a big stretch to take the genealogies back just 10,000 years, let alone one puny million. Even then we would be nowhere near 4.6 billion years. RC Sproul makes it clear from this statement that he believes in a young earth. (And there is a good biblical case that the genealogies are complete and without gaps.2)

    http://salvationbygrace.net/2009/12/...-day-creation/
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-05-2012 at 12:14 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  8. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,303
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    And speaking of Adam, the Bible tells us that he was created on the sixth day. If he lived through day six and day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old, and if each of these days was a thousand or a million years, you have major problems! On the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19), we are given the comparison of day to night, and days to years. If the word “day” doesn’t mean an ordinary day, then the comparison of day to night and day to years becomes meaningless.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-05-2012 at 05:49 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  9. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Your doing exactly what I said in my previous post, equivocating the word evolution. Taking natural selection(genotype+environment =phenotype) calling it evolution, and using examples of it as if it has explained the formation of organisms and the complex functions therein.
    I never stated in my examples that evolution explains the formation of new organisms. What I have said is that clearly n.s. has led to the evolution within species. Proving evolution has produced a new species has yet to be done in an empirical manner and if your criticism is that it can't be done in a lab, then you will probably always be a creationist.


    The thing about the fossil record and evolution is, it's not only a matter of lacking preserved transitional ancestors. The main problem is it has preserved the exact opposite of what evolution suggests. The fossil record displays periods of sudden extinction, followed by stasis in species.
    This is false. Just in hominids alone there is abundant fossil evidence to strongly suggest, yet not prove, man evolved from lower forms of hominids. You will most certainly disagree and to walk through the fossil record here would simply be too great of a task. I will say though that the fossil record showing what we see as precursers to what makes a hominid a Homo Sapian is vast and much more convincing than a fossil record showing Homo Sapian as static and an original form. In other words, there is more evidence of man as an organism evolving from a lower species than man just being created. Creationists can conveniently hide behind the difficulties in collecting fossils millions of years old. The conditions have to be nearly perfect to preserve such a bone and then even more unlikely, someone has to find it. Yet, the fossil record is quite rich with million year old samples of brain capacities, thumb positioning, pelvic angles and so on. Truthfully I like that record more than yours.


    Its alleged vision slowly evolved through an adaptive process, driven by necessity to survive and reproduce. Since macromutations are rejected by science, micromutions are believed to be the creators behind new functions. But what necessary advantage in progeny would 10% of an eye include while in the early stages? Afterall when you Consider the amount of neural uniformity required for sight, 10% of an eye would not equate to 10% vision.
    This is an old anti-evolution argument that sounds appealing on the surface but washes out with little effort. 10% of an eye would certainly distinguish between light and dark. In fact, any genetic anomaly that created a photo-sensitive cell would be a distinct advantage for any sea-born cluster of cells leading it to warmth, food and energy sources. There are many examples of "eyes" in life today that demonstrate this evolution. To think the only adaptive advantage of an eye is for it to see like ours does today is the epitome of human-centric thinking. Gnats, mollusks, dogs etc. Just the fact that the human eye is so falliable should either lead one to understand its developing evolution better or lead one to wondering how many beers your almighty was drinking on whatever day it was when he thought it would be cool to be able to see. Certainly one wouldn't intend to create such a poorly performing object.


    Again, I don't. And again, natural selection does not account for the sequence of events that allegedly turned non-livig chemicals into self-replicating organisms which eventually lead to the human mind.
    So we should throw in the towel and look to the heavens? Religion is easy and it is made conveniently easier with the ambiguity of your only source; a 2000+ year old tome. Honestly, I think atheists are as ignorant as people who live their life by the bible. Just as there is no proof for god there is also no proof against god. what I do know though that if this god is as powerful as you claim he is he certainly did screw a lot of things up in his work.

    In the end I trust what fossil record we do have as well as the abundant anecdotal evidence for evolution vs. the idea that a "creator' with the ability to create life would be so horrendous at doing it that we would have disease, mutations, inefficiencies and so on. I am sure there is a biblical quote somewhere that explains his inadequacies as a creator
    Last edited by Galen Sevinne; 03-05-2012 at 10:00 PM.








  10. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,228

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post

    A lot of ministers change doctrinal positions over a career. Sproul is also a partial preterist who believes the tribulation already occurred and Nero was the anti-Christ.

    He's my brother's hero and when everyone else is
    listening to music on their iPod, he's listening to
    RC Sproul.


    ----------------------------------------------------------
    Sproul also mentions Christ's geneology back to
    Adam. Thats about 20 generations which fit nicely
    into the short bith time frame. The gaps make it
    impossible to fit that in.


    If we take the genealogies that go back to Adam, however, and if we make allowances for certain gaps in them (which could certainly be there), it remains a big stretch from 4004 BC to 4.6 billion years ago. (pp. 121–122)

    ‘A big stretch’! Yes, it would be a big stretch to take the genealogies back just 10,000 years, let alone one puny million. Even then we would be nowhere near 4.6 billion years. RC Sproul makes it clear from this statement that he believes in a young earth. (And there is a good biblical case that the genealogies are complete and without gaps.2)

    http://salvationbygrace.net/2009/12/...-day-creation/
    Fine, even if I agree, which I don't (check out Moses history, his grandfather [if we use those genealogies as you are] had thousands of descendants in the Exodus - he and his kids were very busy to get that many descendants in such a short time).




  11. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,228

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    And speaking of Adam, the Bible tells us that he was created on the sixth day. If he lived through day six and day seven, and then died when he was 930 years old, and if each of these days was a thousand or a million years, you have major problems! On the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1:14-19), we are given the comparison of day to night, and days to years. If the word “day” doesn’t mean an ordinary day, then the comparison of day to night and day to years becomes meaningless.
    I don't believe Adam was created millions or billions of years ago, it was thousands. As few as 6,000 but more than likely 30,000 to 50,000.




  12. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,303
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Official Divorce Agreement

    Well, I thought you meant the days in Genesis were like millions of years or so. You can fit the 20 generations in about 6.000 years
    but not 30,000-50,000, I think.

    According to the Book of Genesis, Abraham was born 292 years after the Flood. The Bible says Noah died 350 years after the Flood, so they both lived at the same time.

    According to the Bible, Moses was the grandson of Kohath, who was alive at the time of the migration from Canaan and lived 133 years, while his son Amran lived 137 years. At the extremes of biological possibility, and assuming the patriarchs really lived to improbably great ages, Moses was born sometime between 15 years and 270 years after the arrival in Egypt and, living to the age of 120 years, died between 135 and 390 years after the arrival. On these calculations, Moses was born between about 1850 and 1600 BCE, and died between about 1730 and 1480 BCE.

    Based on these genealogies, Moses was born between about 150 and 400 years after the death of Noah.

    In between Abraham and Moses were Jacob and Joseph, all key players of that era, so yea, there was a lot of sexual activity going on by the time of the exodus and they carried Joseph's reamins to the promise land with them where they still are. That's what happens when the church doesn't pay for contraceptives-lol.

    Jacob had at least, what 7 sons? After Cain and Able God told Adam and Eve to multiply the
    earth and they took him literally having 33 sons and 23 daughters. When the outcasted
    Cain married about 20 years after being thrown into the wilderness, the girl had to be his sister.
    Adam lived 930 years so he saw the earth multiplied. Same as Noah.


    God also told Noah to multiple the earth after the flood which his family did and he lived long like Adam
    and saw the earth multiplied. Nimrod is a great grand son, I think. These people
    literally and physically took God's command to heart. Hell, King Solomon had 500 wives and he
    consumated everyone one of the marriages and you know his dad, King David was no slouch in
    the horny dept with Bethsheba and many others.

    Yup, them dudes were sexually active.


    http://www.creationmoments.com/conte...m-and-eve-have
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-06-2012 at 08:44 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland