SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
In debate 101, when you have a hopelessly losing position as you do, the goal is to try anything but the truth and facts. Name calling, attempts to belittle and false accusation are some.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
This all depends upon Genesis not the other way around. I feel confident that you are interpreting a scripture about Israel to be about planet Earth. If you read the story in Genesis through, it finishes at the end of Deuteronomy and is about the creation of a people. There are many indications of this. To overlook it is forgivable, however to teach adult Christians that its about a planet is not forgivable, which is what a lot of people do for money. As an idea its Ok, and it is a way of describing Israel that is useful. It never was a description of all of the world.
"19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: - Romans 1:19-20"
"Manifest in them" "shewith it unto them." Who? Jews. They received the law, and through these they came to know and to manifest the invisible God. That's what Romans is talking about: scout's honor.
Genesis means 'Beginning'. It begins with the creation of the heavens and the ground, not 'The Earth'. Authority is heavenly, and the ground is controlled by the heavens. The sun does not merely shine. It rules the day. The moon is not merely bright but rules the night, so says Genesis. These are not put in there for nothing. Ruling is of significance, because in the pentateuch real authority does not come from kings but from morality. Knowledge of good & evil is the divine power that Adam gains for which cause he must be made mortal. He has moral ability to discern good from evil. Genesis describes a world we cannot see of laws and of division between lawlessness and order. The division of Israel from the nations is portrayed here as division between light and dark.
And on it goes; and Romans 1 is referring to this: Israel the creation. He is criticizing the Jews that they of all people know God, and he is accusing them or some of them. You, by quoting him as an authority, are also doing so; so be careful who you accuse and of what. Moving forward, verse 24 of Romans chapter 1 alludes to the time the Jews are exiled. "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:..." which is entirely consistent with the curses mentioned in the law. In Deuteronomy Moses tells them they have the law, so if they ignore it they cause themselves trouble. Verse 25 "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever." Who has the ability to change the truth of God into a lie except those who have the truth of God? Paul can only be referring to the Jews here. They are what is created in Genesis.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I have studied scripture for over 20 years.
Romans 1:19-20 is absolutely not about Israel.
Genesis 1 is as clear as can be and Christ affirmed it.
From Genesis 1, it is clear that God created Adam and Eve on day 6, less than 144 hours from the very start of creation, not 13.7 billons years (5 trillion days). Note from verse 27 it says " male and female created he them."
Now in Mark 10:6-9, Christ is clearly referring to people as evident in verse 7.
You are again wrong. Keep truth denying. It does reveal a flaw in character.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Gen 1:23-31
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. - Mark 10:6-9
Oh, well 20 years amazing! Nobody has ever done that before. God surely owes you the truth.
I feel I have led the horse to the water. Take your time.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What a scholarly rebuttal. So the proof stands.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then quit doing that.
Are you willing to learn? The reason that most Christians do not read Genesis literally is because they do not believe that God is a liar. Anyone that reads Genesis as history is also claiming that God is a liar.
I am willing to support my claims. You don't know enough to even begin to support yours.
I offered to help you to learn so that you could begin to understand the evidence yourself. Why are you so afraid?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that is not Jesus affirming it. Jesus used literary tools quite frequently.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The "scientists" are deceived. I am just saying the "scientists" are deceived. More false accusations like debate 101/
Th proof still stands.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you are deceived. You may belong to a version of Christianity that is a cult.
Are you willing to learn the basics of science? Until you do so your only response here will be you claiming that God is a liar.
Oh, my, then how could you be wrong?
Problem is, you have been studying the writings of human beings from long, long ago. Humans who knew little science, had no microscopes or telescopes, no MRIs, no laboratories, exquisitely little knowledge of the earth and life sciences, but who thought they knew stuff that they had no possible way to know. You have been studying literature. You might just have well have been studying Moby Dick or the Epic of Gilgamesh or Lord of the Rings, for all your studying of scripture can tell you about science.
Until you can get past the notion that your scripture (and nobody else's, by the way) is the "literal word of God," you'll never rise above the level of superstition. If you are going to get anything at all useful out of scripture, you are going to have to learn to read it in the context of what is known today. To throw out real knowledge in favour of myth and allegory leaves you with nothing of use.
I also believe life exists because of a fostering intelligence. The materialist explanation strikes me as fantastically less likely. In my opinion materialist-atheism is not correct
But, fostering intelligence, does not necessarily mean the God of the Christian Bible as it is presented.
But, fostering intelligence, does not necessarily mean the God of the Christian Bible as it is presented.
See you in another twenty years.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
False accusation again from you. I already know basic science.
God predicted the delusion of evolution and billions of years in His book.
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. - 2 Thess 2:10-12
But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. - 2 Tim 3:13
Your are fulfilled prophecy from the Bible with exact details and exact timing.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If you understand science then our discussion will be very short.
And no, that was not about evolution at all.
Let's start discussing science. Do you think that you can properly explain what it is?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Knowledge.
what do you think it is?
Last edited:
Some of us are theists and some are atheists. There are many Christians who have no issue with science and accept evolution.
God made them through the mechanism of evolution.
This is not a debate thread because of where it's placed. It's a discussion of theism as a theological concept by placement in the RF hierarchy.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Then the poster should not use debate 101 techniques.
Creationism and its specious argumentation. You've brought familiar and already rebutted creationist memes here. This practice has a name: Lying for Jesus, also called pious fraud. From Pious fraud
"Pious fraud is a term applied to describe fraudulent practices used to advance a religious cause or belief. This type of fraud may, by religious apologists, be explained as a case of the ends justify the means, in that if people are saved from eternal damnation, then it's perfectly fine to tell a few fibs and perform some magic tricks."
Not because you or your Bible say so. It's extremely likely that life forms wherever conditions permit it to, just like every other process in physics and chemistry. Whenever the conditions are right for ice to melt or water to freeze, it does so EVERY SINGLE TIME.
And random chance is a creationist trope. We say unintended process (proceeds without consciousness or purpose, that is, is blind). Planets form from aggregates of gas, dust, and rocks into spherical bodies. The process is unintended, but not random. The spherical outcome is inevitable if there is sufficient mass.
YOU don't have a theory. Has an excellent scientific hypothesis and a considerable amount of supporting data. It's the creationist who has nothing but an unfalsifiable claim. Nor does he require any support for his beliefs. He only requires that of others who have contradictory beliefs, and they have it. The creationist has nothing but his faith.
Nor would we expect to observe it. And here is your double standard again. YOUR hypothesis has never been observed, but that's not an issue with you, only the ideas you have rejected by faith need support according to you. That's a fallacy called special pleading, or unjustified double standard, also a staple in the creation apologists toolkit.
That is incorrect. Abiogenesis and biological evolution are consistent with the known laws of science. Both are inevitable where possible.
There is no burden of proof with a faith-based thinker. There is no burden of proof in the presence of a faith-based confirmation bias.
You'd need somebody who is skilled in critical thinking, has an adequate fund of factual knowledge, and has the receptive temperament of a student. Absent any of those, nobody can be convinced of anything, especially if he has an interest in NOT learning.
Consider a person who doesn't know any algebra or geometry and resists learning it. You have no burden of proof regarding the Pythagorean theorem with such a person, and no interest in his objections about the validity of the proof or his opinions on the relationship between the sides of a right triangle.
What are the odds of a god existing uncreated and undesigned? You don't know or care, do you? Odds, like evidence and hypotheses are only relevant to you when using them to argue science. This is the fraud of creationist apologetics. You know or should know how dishonest that is.
When you prove something to somebody who previously disagreed with you, you change a mind. Nobody has been convinced by your numbers, thus you've proven nothing. That puts you in the same position as a comedian who claims that his act was funny despite nobody laughing.
Theory? There is an excellent hypothesis with excellent supporting evidence based in thermodynamics. From A New Physics Theory of Life | Quanta Magazine :
"From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said."
Because that would be incorrect. It was a collection of nucleic acids, proteins, water, smaller organic molecules, and ions encased in a lipid spherule.
That is also incorrect. From Visualized: The 4 Billion Year Path of Human Evolution
There are no known irreducibly complex biological systems.
Yes it is. That belief can only be held by faith.
That's a faith-based belief as well, and demonstrably incorrect by orders of magnitude.
Last edited: