Questions for Creationists (page 7)

rem

Jim,

Maybe you should do the same for the Bible! LOL

I have. Wanna try me?

rem

If you were a JW, that kind of "studying" is surely disqualified. If you call quoting the "bible scholars" from "biblestudytools" as studying the Bible, that studying of the Bible is also disqualified. Both ways of "studying" are studying other men who studied the Bible.

Both ways you have "studied" (if you have at all) has not been as a little child, but rather it has been seeking out the boastful opinions of the "wisdom of the world" and the "wise and learned" ie, WTBTS and the "biblestudytools" lot.

1 Cor 3:19-21
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"; 20 and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." 21 So then, no more boasting about men!

Regarding the "wise and learned" and Jesus and Paul's words, it is clear that all of them do NOT have what Jesus said was STRICTLY for "little children." All of them can surely be identified as the "wise and learned" and not the beat up sheep and humble "little children" that Jesus Christ was contrasting as to who would receive him.

1 Cor 1:20-22
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

As Paul, I too have been labeled as presenting God as a weak fool...

2 Cor 11:1
I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that.

But also as Paul, I know my God's "weaknesses" and "foolishness" are wiser than you and stronger than you.

1 Cor 1:24-25
"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength."

Count me in as a fool for God.

1 Cor 3:18
Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise.

Edited by - pomegranate on 3 November 2002 7:22:51

Gedanken

pomegranate,

:If you were a JW, that kind of "studying" is surely disqualified. If you call quoting the "bible scholars" from "biblestudytools" as studying the Bible, that studying of the Bible is also disqualified. Both ways of "studying" are studying other men who studied the Bible.

Excellent point and eloquently put. Think about that, please, next time you are tempted to post a quote from somebody to prove a point about evolution or geology. The principle applies in exactly the same way.

Gedanken

pomegranate

I agree. So if I applied it to me, and you applied it to you, we'd have nothing to disagree about.

Gedanken

pomegranate,

But I don't go around quoting what people say as a substitute for actually reading what they wrote and trying to assess it's validity. However, you do - remember how you produced all those geologists as evidence that the scientific field of geology is consistent with a global flood?

You also claimed that ring species don't exist which makes me think you didn't even read Ridley's article since he provides living evidence and photographs.

Gedanken

ros

Realist said:

in principle everyone can believe how he pleases. the only problem is that believe in creation hampers scientific progress and understanding. many children grow up with this superstious nonsense and therefore are prevented from getting interested in biology and many other scientific fields. therefore especially the US (in contrast to europe) looses many good people.

Personally, I think I have seen the reverse to more aptly be the case--especially among people who leave a high-control fundamentalist religion. Once they leave the fundy religious perspective, they seem inclined to reject any viability for faith, which I can understand since they may have little in their frame of reference to draw on. My Christian faith and biblical faith has very little in common with the fundamentalist perspective. I don't generally get into it on public forums because it get just as in-depth and time-consuming to debate as certain scientific theories, including evolution.

Many notable scientists are theists and even Christian. An outstanding example is Dr. Francis Collins. Here are some links (and quote) if you're interested.

===============================================

http://www.genome.gov/page.cfm?pageID=10000351
http://www.counterbalance.net/bio/coll-body.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/human_genome/753711.stm
The healer-believer: Francis Collins

Francis Collins is a committed Christian and heads the publicly-funded National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Washington DC, US. [He is quoted]:

"It's interesting when you read the life of Christ how much of his time he spent healing the sick."

Francis Collins
He describes himself as a physician-scientist and says his sole aim is to cure disease.

Dr Collins has been directly involved in ground-breaking human gene research. With colleagues, he identified the gene for cystic fibrosis in 1989, the gene for neurofibromatosis in 1990 and the gene for Huntingdon's Disease in 1993.

Dr Collins draws much of his inspiration and scientific drive from his faith.

======================================

This is but one example.

~Ros

pomegranate

I remember it all...and I believe what I presented was accurate to my understanding as I read it. Which was presented with my reasoning on why I think Ridley is a flying hypocrite.

Now, I don't go around telling people what they did and didn't read when I actually have no way of knowing whether they did or not, and neither can you. If you don't believe me when I said I read something by saying I didn't read it, you're basically calling me a liar without having ANY real clue whether that's true or false. Which isn't ingnorance, it's stupid.

If someone says they read something, I accept it. If I don't agree with their understanding on something related to what is read and being debated about, I don't make a claim they didn't read it. If they did; they did. If they didn't and say they did, then I have no way of knowing, and neither do you.

So what are you going to do now? Sue me?

Ring species is a HYPOTHETICAL situation.

The salamanders in Cal are STILL salamanders. They did not change SPECIES just as the peppered moths didn't change SPECIES.

They remained salamanders with what I would call a recessive gene variety in KIND change...

The Song Remains the Same.

Now, if you would like to continue this debate, quit questioning my integrity...otherwise you can kiss my virtual ( | ).

Edited by - pomegranate on 3 November 2002 15:59:25

Realist

ros,

its great if a person can combine a naive idea such as creationism with a scientific mind and interest. however most people are not able to do so. therefore i don't think its a good idea to teach creationism at highschools as an alternative to evolution.

LucidSky

Pom: Regarding ring species -- what do you mean by "hypothetical"? There are several ring species in existance. They are still the same "type" of creature since they are of the same species ring. But think about what would happen if the middle was eliminated. You would now have two distinct species that can no longer interbreed. Thus, a single species has become two -- evolution on a small scale.

Gedanken

Thing is pomegranate, Ridley didn't mention salamanders in his article.

Questions for Creationists

Share this