WAT, I have little patience for your nonsense anymore. Call it what you wish but "believing" in gravity and having "faith that gravity" works in conjuction with the mass of an object IS a type of faith.

But the "faith" that I have consistantly talked about is your (evolutionists) FAITH that either there IS no God or that God DID NOT create, especially did not create LIFE.

There is absolutely NO proof of that belief, or contention, or whatever term you feel comfortable assigning to it. The "bottom line" is that you BELIEVE it to be true and BY FAITH IN THAT BELIEF you "embrace" evolution (natural random chance and mutations) as THE only way things could have gotten here. Take God out of the picture, and that's all that you have left to believe in, proven or not.

Conversely, put a Creator into the picture and HOW things got here can be changed to "by His will" and not by random chance.


And WAT, there IS a man, Jesus Christ, who CAN be examined, the eyewitness testimony can be reviewed, a decision about the veracity of his claims and who he said he was CAN be made.




Oh come on WAT. Not ONE shred of proof that is reproduceable and verifiable to PROVE evolution is real and you accuse me of "twisted explanations???" Your deep seated bias against God and creation is really coloring your posting now.

No, what you want to do is to continue the brainwashing of people to believe that evolution HAS BEEN proven, while you should know that it has NOT been proven. But the alternative, that a Creator exists, is what you really don't want others to consider. Hence, instead of discussing the facts you resort wild emotional arguments. Why NOT answer the simple question I put to you earlier about the building? How much time WOULD it require for that building to erect itself into a fully functioning building anyway?

"for the benefit of others...." Horsepockey.

So if there is "no truth" then your statement is not true?

I think there is a universal truth. That is why almost every human being, regardless of culture, knows right from wrong. He may not follow these norms himself, but he knows the truth. For example, a man may steal from another and not feel bad about it. However, if someone steals from him, he becomes indignant and feels he has been wronged. He knows the truth. Why? Of what evolutionary advantage is it to have a conscience? For purely survival purposes, such a thought process would seem to be a hindrance. Why does it exist?

Precisely. This is the logical conclusion to that statement. By definition, something must be true...otherwise everything is NOT true. If the argument there is no objective truth...then we all might as well stop this discussion, stop fighting for our marriages, etc. Because it would all be subjective...no truth...no right or wrong. Just whatever we decide truth to be at the time.

Otherwise, there is truth. There is objective rights and wrongs. And our pursuit of the truth si why we are having this discussion.

Now...Mortarman will go back to his popcorn as he is learning MUCH here. Waiting for more...

In His arms.

FH:

"Yes. God would cease to be truthful, and a liar cannot be God."

Not surprising, and very sad response 2 weaver's 2uestion.

gone again!
-ol' 2long

FH, I have been struggling to understand why your stance on this subject is so strong. I think I found it when you said, "Yes. God would cease to be truthful, and a liar cannot be God."

I understand now. Essentially, since you believe in the literal truth of the Christian Bible, if there is a sure and unalterable proof that something in it is incorrect, then God Himself is shown to be a liar -- and therefore not God. (I'm assuming a big thing, not a problem that could be explained by a poor translation or similar human-introduced error.)

No wonder your defend your position so strongly. I would, too, if that was what was at stake for me.

I don't know what to say to explain how deeply troubled I am on your behalf, FH. I could try to say something about God being able to take care of Himself. (I think that's what FGG said in the post just to you.) I could also try to ask that you examine your faith and base it on something deeper than the probably-fallible words of a document that, whether originally written by God or not, have certainly changed tremendously as they've been handed down over millenia. Or I could try to point out that the deepest and strongest of faiths must surely be able to reconcile all of reality, no matter how different that reality is from what we originally thought. If our faith requires us to deny any portion of reality, whether it is infidelity or the existence of far-distant galaxies, surely our faith is based on a lie.

That is not to say that your particular arguments regarding creationism are false. Though I believe that evolution is a considerably better theory than the creation story in the Old Testament, I do not know that either of them is the fully correct model for how life arose and how we came to exist on this tiny little planet, our oasis in the darkness of space.

Just J and 2Long...

Not suprisingly, I also believe that if the Bible were proven false, that God would cease to be truthful...and become a liar.

We have discussed before why this is. How I believe (and so far the evidence shows) that the Bible can and has been guided over the years by God. It is why it has survived mankinds efforts and mistakes. Historians find it remarkably accurate.

Do I know how this will all flush out in the argument on exactly how this all began? No. I do believe what the Bible has said, due to the facts at hand...and three other very important facts.

First, I know so far not one fact within the Bible has been proven untrue. There are things that have not been proven yet (the Great Flood, Noah's Ark, etc). But there has yet to be someone come up and prove that the historocity of the document is false.

Second, the predictive power of the Bible. The Bible was written (parts of the OT) hundreds of years before the events it predicted. I have seen the results of mathmeticians who have worked the probabilities of the events the Bible predicted actually coming true. I have a better probability of going outside, jumping up, escaping gravity and landing on the moon!

Third, when we talk about origins...part of that is not just science. It is also history!! Now, if we could have had a few humans there at the beginning...eye witnesses...then this argument would be over, right. But there were no humans then...no eye witness acountings. Or were there eye witness acountings?

You see, I know a Man that was there. I know Him personally. I have met Him, He has spoken to me thru many avenues. He is a daily part of my life. I have a relationship with that Man. Just because many do not know Him...and believe I am believing I am hearing from the boogey man...does not make Him less real and less of a person in my life. No one on here has ever met my father.. Doesnt mean he didnt exist.

In the case of history, Jesus did exist. Few (except for looney tunes) would deny that He didnt exist (kind of like the Iranians saying the Holocaust didnt happen!). History also reports Jesus claiming to be God. History also reports many things going on with Jesus and with His followers which point towards Him possibly being who He said He was. Added to the predictions of the Bible of who this Man was and when He would come...and what He would do...it adds up to a very credible eye witness and historical probability that this Man was who He said He was.

But what about today? You see, to discount millions of "eye witnesses" who have met and know Jesus, would to be either to off-handedly put them in the category of being "nuts," or would be just plain ignoring what these people have experienced.

I believe in the creation model, not just because the Bible says so. I also believe it because He tells me so. Because the Man who wrote this document, who made sure that it survived thru the ages, who bled and died for me...daily helps open my eyes to the truth.

So, yes...if one day it was proven that the Bible is wrong...that would make God a liar. That Jesus speaking to me would be nothing but voiced in my head and a little boys' imaginary friend.

But since I do know this person and I can talk to Him anytime I wish, I am able to take what I learn and to ask Him to guide me thru to the truth.

He has yet to fail me in doing so. That is why I sit back here and read this thread with great interest. Why? Because I believe thru facts and the Lord guiding me thru those facts, that I will be able to discover the truth.

Otherwise, it is just Mortarman's interpretation of events and "facts." And that leads us back to nothing is truth.

As someone said sometime...if I am wrong, what does it hurt? We die one die and that's it. But if those that will not accept Jesus' free gift...to accept what He has done for each one of us...but wants to continue to deny God...then God will deny them. And where will that get that person?

My faith is rock solid because He has never let me down. Never. He has never not been with me. His Word has been correct all of these hundreds of years. His predictions were true. And the evidence has yet to come in that shows that any of that is a lie.

Hope that explains how I feel about it. FH may want to add to it in his own experience.

In His arms.

FH, WAT, et al,

My Moma told me never to ARGUE religeon.

""WAT, I have little patience for your nonsense anymore. Call it what you wish but "believing" in gravity and having "faith that gravity" works in conjuction with the mass of an object IS a type of faith.""

FH you are stretching the true Christian meaning of FAITH to comply with your arguement.

FH is arguing religeon. Wat, 2long, and others are argueing science. WATER AND OIL. APPLES AND ORANGES. That is why this thread could go to infinity or even as long as IDIOTVILLE. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

Well...I couldn't resist, I just had to peek in and see what is going on.

Summary:

WAT is emphatic
FH is dogmatic
2Long is jumping out (again).

Surprisingly enough....no one has changed their mind. I'll check back in a few days to see what progress has been made (other than the obvious shortening of the fuse).

BTW - My comments of several days ago that were mostly dismissed are still, in my opinion, valid.

Anybody wanna fight about it??????

MM:

"Not suprisingly, I also believe that if the Bible were proven false, that God would cease to be truthful...and become a liar."

Why do you and FH believe that we're trying 2 prove the Bible "false?"

At what instant would God become this liar? The day the Bible is "proven false" or the Thursday afternoon at 3:00pm after he said "let there be light?"



When I was a tyke (20 years old), I had a friend who insisted that if I "believed in evolution" I was calling God a liar. Over 30 years later, it still makes no sense whatsoever. I felt sorry for him.

-ol' 2long

FGG:

I can't remember what you said, or what your point was.

Rock inventory in Palestine?

-ol' 2long

Oh, I'm gone again, by the way! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Okay...repeat of yesterdays post:

(This is a private message to FH...no one else is authorized to read it)....

FH .... God has already won this argument. Read Romans 1 (if you don't already have it memorized). He says He has made himself known through His visible creation. He didn't put anyone in charge of FORCING anyone to see that if they choose not to.

Okay...the rest of you can read now...I'm done.

In her recent book, Ann Coulter spewed,

"Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God." emphasis added

I don't agree with either Anne nor FH and MM on this point. But I wouldn't have expected FH and MM to line up with the liberals. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

WAT

FGG:

In your own words (well, your OTHER own words), what do you mean?

Or, tell me if I'm interpreting your statement right.

God's visible creation = the stuff, people, and critters around us - whether they came about 10,000 years ago, fully formed, or gradually, starting some 3.8 billion years ago, after the last globally-sterilizing impact at the end of planetary accretion.

God can still be God, and truthful, in either scenario.

-ol' 2long

Okay, rather than me seeking to "interpret" which is sometimes confused with "spin"...here is Romans 1:18-20 from various translations. Read it for yourself....I'll not attempt to tell you what it means (that would be a bit presumptuous, don't you think?):

"18: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19: since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20: For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" New American Standard


"18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
19: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20: Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse" Revised Standard Version

"18: But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.*
19: They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them.
20: For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. New Living Translation

There you are, 2Long...

Now...suppose for just a moment...I know..you have to really imagine...but suppose for just a moment there REALLY was a God???

Georgia (with no stones being thrown)...

And to ADD to that...I remember during my one (that's right, one each)physics course that Galileo got in trouble with the church for teaching that the universe did not revolve around the earth, as was accepted dogma for the time. (See article below). Hence, I clearly know the verses that my friend FH is arguing...but for me I would feel that I am putting my entire faith into my INTERPRETATION of those verses.

IE - What if WAT & 2Long were correct?

Would that mean:
a) the Bible is erroneous?
b) my interpretation of the Bible is erroneous?
c) the whole thing is a farce just dreamed up by man and we're all on a wild merry-go-round of chance?

Anyway...not to keep Galileo waiting:

"As a professor of astronomy at University of Pisa, Galileo was required to teach the accepted theory of his time that the sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth. Later at University of Padua he was exposed to a new theory, proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus, that the Earth and all the other planets revolved around the sun. Galileo's observations with his new telescope convinced him of the truth of Copernicus's sun-centered or heliocentric theory.

Galileo's support for the heliocentric theory got him into trouble with the Roman Catholic Church. In 1633 the Inquisition convicted him of heresy and forced him to recant (publicly withdraw) his support of Copernicus. They sentenced him to life imprisonment, but because of his advanced age allowed him serve his term under house arrest at his villa outside of Florence, Italy."

Correct about what? Be careful! There are a lot of incorrect "presuppositions" going around. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

WAT

I am not..I repeat NOT...going to read through this entire thread to pick out the "about what's"!!

""allowed him serve his term under house arrest at his villa outside of Florence, Italy.""

Now THAT'S some rough duty! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />