Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ken Ham vs Creationist?

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 12:45:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?

There is Young Earth ones like Ken Ham, but then there is people like Hugh Ross who believes that the earth is billions of years old and was created by God.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 1:17:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 12:45:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?

There is Young Earth ones like Ken Ham, but then there is people like Hugh Ross who believes that the earth is billions of years old and was created by God.

"The Earth is billions of years old and was created by God"...that statement is self-contradicting in my honest opinion.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 1:21:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 1:17:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:45:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?

There is Young Earth ones like Ken Ham, but then there is people like Hugh Ross who believes that the earth is billions of years old and was created by God.

"The Earth is billions of years old and was created by God"...that statement is self-contradicting in my honest opinion.

How so?
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 1:24:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 1:21:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:17:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:45:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?

There is Young Earth ones like Ken Ham, but then there is people like Hugh Ross who believes that the earth is billions of years old and was created by God.

"The Earth is billions of years old and was created by God"...that statement is self-contradicting in my honest opinion.

How so?

If all life is a product of evolution, how can it also be true that God created?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 2:26:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 1:24:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:21:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:17:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:45:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?

There is Young Earth ones like Ken Ham, but then there is people like Hugh Ross who believes that the earth is billions of years old and was created by God.

"The Earth is billions of years old and was created by God"...that statement is self-contradicting in my honest opinion.

How so?

If all life is a product of evolution, how can it also be true that God created?

I believe that he is the one who came up with the system. Just like I believe he came up with the laws of physics.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 3:32:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 2:26:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:24:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:21:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:17:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:45:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?

There is Young Earth ones like Ken Ham, but then there is people like Hugh Ross who believes that the earth is billions of years old and was created by God.

"The Earth is billions of years old and was created by God"...that statement is self-contradicting in my honest opinion.

How so?

If all life is a product of evolution, how can it also be true that God created?

I believe that he is the one who came up with the system. Just like I believe he came up with the laws of physics.

Shouldn't you change the religion stated on your profile to "Deist", then?
If you believe that God was the "first cause" but then he left everything alone to develop on its own with no intervention on His own part, then that's what you are, correct?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 3:39:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 3:32:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 2:26:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:24:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:21:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:17:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:45:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?

There is Young Earth ones like Ken Ham, but then there is people like Hugh Ross who believes that the earth is billions of years old and was created by God.

"The Earth is billions of years old and was created by God"...that statement is self-contradicting in my honest opinion.

How so?

If all life is a product of evolution, how can it also be true that God created?

I believe that he is the one who came up with the system. Just like I believe he came up with the laws of physics.

Shouldn't you change the religion stated on your profile to "Deist", then?
If you believe that God was the "first cause" but then he left everything alone to develop on its own with no intervention on His own part, then that's what you are, correct?

There are Christian Deists like Thomas Jefferson. But no. I still believe in holy intervention at times.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 3:47:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 3:39:43 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 3:32:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 2:26:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:24:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:21:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:17:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:45:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?

There is Young Earth ones like Ken Ham, but then there is people like Hugh Ross who believes that the earth is billions of years old and was created by God.

"The Earth is billions of years old and was created by God"...that statement is self-contradicting in my honest opinion.

How so?

If all life is a product of evolution, how can it also be true that God created?

I believe that he is the one who came up with the system. Just like I believe he came up with the laws of physics.

Shouldn't you change the religion stated on your profile to "Deist", then?
If you believe that God was the "first cause" but then he left everything alone to develop on its own with no intervention on His own part, then that's what you are, correct?

There are Christian Deists like Thomas Jefferson. But no. I still believe in holy intervention at times.

The Bible says that God created the Earth in six days. If you don't take this literally, because the evidence suggests that it is not true, and that life formed by itself without any divine intervention, then what's the point in believing the rest of the Bible?
Why? You're willing to disregard one part of it which was not written figuratively or poetically, so why not dismiss the rest as hogwash? Why not become an atheist, or at least a Deist?
Understand that while I am a Christian and my intention is not to get you to stop believing in the Bible, I do find your willingness to say that a very important part of the Bible did not happen disturbing and I hope to cause you to reflect on what you believe.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 4:38:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 3:47:52 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 3:39:43 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 3:32:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 2:26:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:24:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:21:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:17:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:45:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?

There is Young Earth ones like Ken Ham, but then there is people like Hugh Ross who believes that the earth is billions of years old and was created by God.

"The Earth is billions of years old and was created by God"...that statement is self-contradicting in my honest opinion.

How so?

If all life is a product of evolution, how can it also be true that God created?

I believe that he is the one who came up with the system. Just like I believe he came up with the laws of physics.

Shouldn't you change the religion stated on your profile to "Deist", then?
If you believe that God was the "first cause" but then he left everything alone to develop on its own with no intervention on His own part, then that's what you are, correct?

There are Christian Deists like Thomas Jefferson. But no. I still believe in holy intervention at times.

The Bible says that God created the Earth in six days. If you don't take this literally, because the evidence suggests that it is not true, and that life formed by itself without any divine intervention, then what's the point in believing the rest of the Bible?
Why? You're willing to disregard one part of it which was not written figuratively or poetically, so why not dismiss the rest as hogwash? Why not become an atheist, or at least a Deist?
Understand that while I am a Christian and my intention is not to get you to stop believing in the Bible, I do find your willingness to say that a very important part of the Bible did not happen disturbing and I hope to cause you to reflect on what you believe.

So we can agree the gospels were written as a narrative eye witness. But there's a reason not to take things in the story as literal. Jesus says different things like "I am the door" or "I am the true vine." Jesus isn't literally a vine or door. But he is these in the sense of metaphors.

Also, if you study the 6 days side by side, you'll find a recipe in there. List the 6 in this way. first 3 on one side, the other 3 on the other. The first 3 were separations of the Earth's elements (sky, water, land, etc.). The other days explain the creatures and beings that reside in the parallel day. Allow me to show a model.

http://www.theology21.com...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 5:02:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 12:39:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
bump with video finally on thumbnail.



When I read 'The Case for Christ' and 'The case for the Creator' by Hugh Ross, I disagreed with him completely and found his books to be 'preaching to the choir', but I have to admit I was rooting for him against Hovind and Ham. His position is much more reasonable and consistent than the YEC, and relies (partially) on observations of reality.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 5:11:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 4:38:45 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

Also, if you study the 6 days side by side, you'll find a recipe in there. List the 6 in this way. first 3 on one side, the other 3 on the other. The first 3 were separations of the Earth's elements (sky, water, land, etc.). The other days explain the creatures and beings that reside in the parallel day. Allow me to show a model.

http://www.theology21.com...

What a tragically blinkered view you guys have of the universe. Do you have any idea of the scale of the universe? And here all you can do is to talk about the Earth as if it's the be all and end all of our unimaginably vast cosmos. Lift your eyes up from your navels and take a look around you. We are on a piece of cosmic dust in the wider scheme of things. Humans have only been around for only 500,000 out of 13,700,000,000 years. Think about that. It's an eye-blink. The Earth and its inhabitants are not the centre of existence and you guys are guilty of overwhelming hubris to think so.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 5:17:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 5:02:40 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:39:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
bump with video finally on thumbnail.



When I read 'The Case for Christ' and 'The case for the Creator' by Hugh Ross, I disagreed with him completely and found his books to be 'preaching to the choir', but I have to admit I was rooting for him against Hovind and Ham. His position is much more reasonable and consistent than the YEC, and relies (partially) on observations of reality.

Oh snap. Hugh is making cases now. O_O

Lol, but yeah. I don't agree with his view entirely, but I see more realistic observations compared to Ken Ham and the Hovind family.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 5:19:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 5:11:44 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/26/2014 4:38:45 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

Also, if you study the 6 days side by side, you'll find a recipe in there. List the 6 in this way. first 3 on one side, the other 3 on the other. The first 3 were separations of the Earth's elements (sky, water, land, etc.). The other days explain the creatures and beings that reside in the parallel day. Allow me to show a model.

http://www.theology21.com...

What a tragically blinkered view you guys have of the universe. Do you have any idea of the scale of the universe? And here all you can do is to talk about the Earth as if it's the be all and end all of our unimaginably vast cosmos. Lift your eyes up from your navels and take a look around you. We are on a piece of cosmic dust in the wider scheme of things. Humans have only been around for only 500,000 out of 13,700,000,000 years. Think about that. It's an eye-blink. The Earth and its inhabitants are not the centre of existence and you guys are guilty of overwhelming hubris to think so.

I know we are a speck of dust in the universe. As Carl Sagan once put it, we are just a tiny blue dot in the universe. I know we aren't the special center, but I am hoping we run into other life forms on other planets so we can learn from their culture.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2014 5:27:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 5:17:15 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 5:02:40 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:39:59 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
bump with video finally on thumbnail.



When I read 'The Case for Christ' and 'The case for the Creator' by Hugh Ross, I disagreed with him completely and found his books to be 'preaching to the choir', but I have to admit I was rooting for him against Hovind and Ham. His position is much more reasonable and consistent than the YEC, and relies (partially) on observations of reality.

Oh snap. Hugh is making cases now. O_O

Lol, but yeah. I don't agree with his view entirely, but I see more realistic observations compared to Ken Ham and the Hovind family.

Agreed.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dee-em
Posts: 6,469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 2:49:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 5:19:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 5:11:44 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/26/2014 4:38:45 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

Also, if you study the 6 days side by side, you'll find a recipe in there. List the 6 in this way. first 3 on one side, the other 3 on the other. The first 3 were separations of the Earth's elements (sky, water, land, etc.). The other days explain the creatures and beings that reside in the parallel day. Allow me to show a model.

http://www.theology21.com...

What a tragically blinkered view you guys have of the universe. Do you have any idea of the scale of the universe? And here all you can do is to talk about the Earth as if it's the be all and end all of our unimaginably vast cosmos. Lift your eyes up from your navels and take a look around you. We are on a piece of cosmic dust in the wider scheme of things. Humans have only been around for only 500,000 out of 13,700,000,000 years. Think about that. It's an eye-blink. The Earth and its inhabitants are not the centre of existence and you guys are guilty of overwhelming hubris to think so.

I know we are a speck of dust in the universe. As Carl Sagan once put it, we are just a tiny blue dot in the universe. I know we aren't the special center, but I am hoping we run into other life forms on other planets so we can learn from their culture.

If you know that, then why are you entertaining the idea of a god creating sky, land, water etc.? I would have thought you would reject it as nonsense out of hand. You could contain over 1,300 Earths within Jupiter and yet no reference to Jupiter in the Bible. Not to mention the trillions of other suns and the planets that orbit them. What are they there for? That's because the Bible was written by men and, to them, there was only the Earth and the heavens (the starry night sky). That's all they knew.

Evolution explains all life on Earth. The OT can be dismissed as mostly Jewish myths and legends (with just a few bits of actual non-supernatural history thrown in).
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:24:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 3:39:43 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 3:32:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 2:26:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:24:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:21:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:17:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:45:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?

There is Young Earth ones like Ken Ham, but then there is people like Hugh Ross who believes that the earth is billions of years old and was created by God.

"The Earth is billions of years old and was created by God"...that statement is self-contradicting in my honest opinion.

How so?

If all life is a product of evolution, how can it also be true that God created?

I believe that he is the one who came up with the system. Just like I believe he came up with the laws of physics.

Shouldn't you change the religion stated on your profile to "Deist", then?
If you believe that God was the "first cause" but then he left everything alone to develop on its own with no intervention on His own part, then that's what you are, correct?

There are Christian Deists like Thomas Jefferson. But no. I still believe in holy intervention at times.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot let this misnomer stand. Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to religion and clergy. Jefferson was not, by any stretch of imagination, a christian. He was deistic, but loathed the hypocrisy and immoral behavior of the church and its loudest proponents.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 3:33:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

I also can't help but notice that Ham won't let Ross complete a thought, without interrupting him. He employs the Bill O'Reilly redneck debate tactics. In that tactic, the winner is not the one that presents the best arguments, but the one that speaks the loudest, and PREVENTS his opponent from presenting ANY argument... Ham, Hovind, and Comfort are absolute, complete babbling idiots...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 7:36:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/26/2014 4:38:45 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

So we can agree the gospels were written as a narrative eye witness.
Even though paleography, modern textual criticism and the texts themselves show us that they were not eye-witness narratives. Have you ever actually read the gospels? Let's take a look at the first four verses of "Luke" (to start with).

[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
[2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
[4] That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Did you catch that? Take a good look at Luke 1:2. He's not claiming to be an eyewitness. He's claiming that the information was delivered to him, by people who "in the beginning" were eyewitnesses. In other words, at some point - an untold number of steps before reaching the author - he believes they originated with eyewitnesses whom he doesn't know. So he's clearly saying that he is not himself, an eyewitness.

And if you study the rest of the text - particularly if you do a horizontal reading against "Mark", it becomes very clear that a copy of "Mark" is one of those sources. So is "Mark" an eyewitness account? Well, unfortunately for Christianity, it is clearly not. The author even demonstrates that he knows next to nothing of Jewish practices and beliefs. He misquotes the 10-Commandments, originally wrote in a crude version of Koine Greek, rather than Hebrew, and offers credit to Moses, for things Jews are always very careful to credit to God. So the author wasn't a former Jew, and therefore, certainly wasn't "Mark". Even if he had only been someone who knew Jesus well enough to have witnessed some of the events in the narrative, he should have had a much better understanding of Jewish beliefs than he provides. So the author of "Luke" copied from the author of "Mark" and neither one were eyewitnesses. And we know "Luke" was largely copied from "Mark" because it contains some 300-parallel verses with "Mark".

In fact, if you look at Luke 9:18, you'll find something rather peculiar.
(Luke 9:18) "And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am?"

Did you see that? Was Jesus alone, or was he with his disciples? The verse claims both, and in sequence. Not only that, is Jesus praying, or is he walking and asking his disciples a question? It claims he's doing both things at the same time. So what's going on here? Again, a horizontal reading will reveal the answer to this little mystery. If you read a few verses in "Mark", and then a few of the corresponding verses in "Luke", so that the two gospels are tracking along together (a "horizontal reading"), you'll find that they track together very well, right up to Mark 6:46. And at Mark 6:46 Jesus has just sent his disciples out to sea, while he ascends a mountain to pray alone. And that's what is happening in he first half of Luke 9:18. But then the two stories suffer a disconnect. While Mark goes on to talk about several significant events, including several miracles, Luke offers none of these things. In fact, you can just hold your place in "Luke", until you've read another 74.5 verses in "Mark". And at that point, the two gospels sync back up again. And this occurs at Mark 8:27. And what do we find at Mark 8:27?

(Mark 8:27) "And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?"

And that is the second half of Luke 9:18.

So the author of "Luke" was not only working from a copy of "Mark", but his copy was damaged. The damage appears to have started in the latter half of Mark 6:46, and continues until Mark 8:27. So the author of "Luke" simply stuck the two halves together, to produce the contradictive statements in Luke 9:18.

We find even more copying when analyzing "Matthew". In fact, it contains some 606-parallel verses with "Mark". So the question becomes, if the author of "Matthew" was an eyewitness, why did he copy almost the entirety of "Mark" instead of relying on his own account? The problem only gets worse when we find about 100-verses in "Matthew" which are parallels - and in many cases, exact copies - of some of the verses in "Luke". This is explained by the existence of a third document, now known as the "Q", which contained these common verses (which are not found in "Mark"), which are common to "Luke" and "Matthew".

And Luke/Acts contains still another surprise which comes in the form of some very specific information regarding three of the rebels. We see in many ancient texts that there were hundreds of these rebels, yet both "Luke" and "John" are specific only in regard to the very same three. And these are the same three - it so happens - which are found to be offered with the same specific details in two of the writings of Flavius Josephus ("Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War"). Yet the writings of Josephus contain not only more detail, but more accurate information, showing that it was the original source for all three.

So none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, none were written by Mark, none were written by Matthew, none were written by Luke, and none were written by John. They are all anonymous writings from non-witnesses.

Also, if you study the 6 days side by side, you'll find a recipe in there. List the 6 in this way. first 3 on one side, the other 3 on the other. The first 3 were separations of the Earth's elements (sky, water, land, etc.). The other days explain the creatures and beings that reside in the parallel day. Allow me to show a model.

http://www.theology21.com...

And? So what? That's only because you can't put plants, animals and water on a non-existent planet. There's no other way to arrange them. But the order given for the various components is still quite fallacious. You can't have Earth before stars, liquid water before an atmosphere, liquid water before the sun, or plants before the sun. And Genesis claims all four of those invalid conditions.

Before you hasten to drop the literal 6-days in the trash, don't forget to check the actual text of the Bible; specifically...

(Genesis 1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

(Genesis 1:8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

(Genesis 1:13) And the evening and the morning were the third day.

(Genesis 1:19) And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

(Genesis 1:23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

(Genesis 1:31) 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.

So how many times does Genesis tell us that a "day" was the period between evening and morning (as was customary for the ancient Jews)? Let's count them; twice in verse 5, and once each in verses 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31. So that's SEVEN times, that Genesis defines a "day" as a literal 24-hour day, and yet many Christians simply ignore that. And they ignore it because we know the Earth didn't form in 7 days. So they simply reject a claim which was so important that it was repeated 7-times in just 26-verses, for the sake of trying to salvage the Bible from its own false claims.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 8:18:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 2:49:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/26/2014 5:19:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 5:11:44 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/26/2014 4:38:45 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

Also, if you study the 6 days side by side, you'll find a recipe in there. List the 6 in this way. first 3 on one side, the other 3 on the other. The first 3 were separations of the Earth's elements (sky, water, land, etc.). The other days explain the creatures and beings that reside in the parallel day. Allow me to show a model.

http://www.theology21.com...

What a tragically blinkered view you guys have of the universe. Do you have any idea of the scale of the universe? And here all you can do is to talk about the Earth as if it's the be all and end all of our unimaginably vast cosmos. Lift your eyes up from your navels and take a look around you. We are on a piece of cosmic dust in the wider scheme of things. Humans have only been around for only 500,000 out of 13,700,000,000 years. Think about that. It's an eye-blink. The Earth and its inhabitants are not the centre of existence and you guys are guilty of overwhelming hubris to think so.

I know we are a speck of dust in the universe. As Carl Sagan once put it, we are just a tiny blue dot in the universe. I know we aren't the special center, but I am hoping we run into other life forms on other planets so we can learn from their culture.

If you know that, then why are you entertaining the idea of a god creating sky, land, water etc.? I would have thought you would reject it as nonsense out of hand. You could contain over 1,300 Earths within Jupiter and yet no reference to Jupiter in the Bible. Not to mention the trillions of other suns and the planets that orbit them. What are they there for? That's because the Bible was written by men and, to them, there was only the Earth and the heavens (the starry night sky). That's all they knew.

Evolution explains all life on Earth. The OT can be dismissed as mostly Jewish myths and legends (with just a few bits of actual non-supernatural history thrown in).

Which is why Genesis 1-11 is a myth that tells stories to explain different cultures and the earth.

The bible was written by men. But the bible is not a science book. How can it when science like astronomy and physics didn't come to exist until the Galileo and Newton days.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 8:22:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:24:53 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/26/2014 3:39:43 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 3:32:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 2:26:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:24:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:21:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:17:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:45:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?

There is Young Earth ones like Ken Ham, but then there is people like Hugh Ross who believes that the earth is billions of years old and was created by God.

"The Earth is billions of years old and was created by God"...that statement is self-contradicting in my honest opinion.

How so?

If all life is a product of evolution, how can it also be true that God created?

I believe that he is the one who came up with the system. Just like I believe he came up with the laws of physics.

Shouldn't you change the religion stated on your profile to "Deist", then?
If you believe that God was the "first cause" but then he left everything alone to develop on its own with no intervention on His own part, then that's what you are, correct?

There are Christian Deists like Thomas Jefferson. But no. I still believe in holy intervention at times.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot let this misnomer stand. Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to religion and clergy. Jefferson was not, by any stretch of imagination, a christian. He was deistic, but loathed the hypocrisy and immoral behavior of the church and its loudest proponents.

He was against organized religion and the clergy. He believed Jesus was a moral teacher and had a bible, but the deist pasty is when he didn't believe there was a trinity, supernatural occurances, and the famous Jefferson bible is basically the bible with pages ripped out of anything referring to the supernatural. So he was a Christian in the sense that he thought Jesus was a good moral teacher, but denied about everything else in Christianity.

However if I am wrong about that, please correct me because I don't want to get that wrong.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 8:26:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 3:33:56 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

I also can't help but notice that Ham won't let Ross complete a thought, without interrupting him. He employs the Bill O'Reilly redneck debate tactics. In that tactic, the winner is not the one that presents the best arguments, but the one that speaks the loudest, and PREVENTS his opponent from presenting ANY argument... Ham, Hovind, and Comfort are absolute, complete babbling idiots...

That's what I hope people notice. That these people just like to talk talk talk while people like Hugh Ross are actually explaining science that he is involved in with scripture. What got my nerves more was when the host said "Could you dumb that down to a 3rd grade level?" I feel like if the show was in England, this wouldn't happen. I advocate we need to make science part of the core curriculum more.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 8:34:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 7:36:13 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/26/2014 4:38:45 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:

So we can agree the gospels were written as a narrative eye witness.
Even though paleography, modern textual criticism and the texts themselves show us that they were not eye-witness narratives. Have you ever actually read the gospels? Let's take a look at the first four verses of "Luke" (to start with).

[1] Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
[2] Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
[3] It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
[4] That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Did you catch that? Take a good look at Luke 1:2. He's not claiming to be an eyewitness. He's claiming that the information was delivered to him, by people who "in the beginning" were eyewitnesses. In other words, at some point - an untold number of steps before reaching the author - he believes they originated with eyewitnesses whom he doesn't know. So he's clearly saying that he is not himself, an eyewitness.

And if you study the rest of the text - particularly if you do a horizontal reading against "Mark", it becomes very clear that a copy of "Mark" is one of those sources. So is "Mark" an eyewitness account? Well, unfortunately for Christianity, it is clearly not. The author even demonstrates that he knows next to nothing of Jewish practices and beliefs. He misquotes the 10-Commandments, originally wrote in a crude version of Koine Greek, rather than Hebrew, and offers credit to Moses, for things Jews are always very careful to credit to God. So the author wasn't a former Jew, and therefore, certainly wasn't "Mark". Even if he had only been someone who knew Jesus well enough to have witnessed some of the events in the narrative, he should have had a much better understanding of Jewish beliefs than he provides. So the author of "Luke" copied from the author of "Mark" and neither one were eyewitnesses. And we know "Luke" was largely copied from "Mark" because it contains some 300-parallel verses with "Mark".

In fact, if you look at Luke 9:18, you'll find something rather peculiar.
(Luke 9:18) "And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am?"

Did you see that? Was Jesus alone, or was he with his disciples? The verse claims both, and in sequence. Not only that, is Jesus praying, or is he walking and asking his disciples a question? It claims he's doing both things at the same time. So what's going on here? Again, a horizontal reading will reveal the answer to this little mystery. If you read a few verses in "Mark", and then a few of the corresponding verses in "Luke", so that the two gospels are tracking along together (a "horizontal reading"), you'll find that they track together very well, right up to Mark 6:46. And at Mark 6:46 Jesus has just sent his disciples out to sea, while he ascends a mountain to pray alone. And that's what is happening in he first half of Luke 9:18. But then the two stories suffer a disconnect. While Mark goes on to talk about several significant events, including several miracles, Luke offers none of these things. In fact, you can just hold your place in "Luke", until you've read another 74.5 verses in "Mark". And at that point, the two gospels sync back up again. And this occurs at Mark 8:27. And what do we find at Mark 8:27?

(Mark 8:27) "And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am?"

And that is the second half of Luke 9:18.

So the author of "Luke" was not only working from a copy of "Mark", but his copy was damaged. The damage appears to have started in the latter half of Mark 6:46, and continues until Mark 8:27. So the author of "Luke" simply stuck the two halves together, to produce the contradictive statements in Luke 9:18.

We find even more copying when analyzing "Matthew". In fact, it contains some 606-parallel verses with "Mark". So the question becomes, if the author of "Matthew" was an eyewitness, why did he copy almost the entirety of "Mark" instead of relying on his own account? The problem only gets worse when we find about 100-verses in "Matthew" which are parallels - and in many cases, exact copies - of some of the verses in "Luke". This is explained by the existence of a third document, now known as the "Q", which contained these common verses (which are not found in "Mark"), which are common to "Luke" and "Matthew".

And Luke/Acts contains still another surprise which comes in the form of some very specific information regarding three of the rebels. We see in many ancient texts that there were hundreds of these rebels, yet both "Luke" and "John" are specific only in regard to the very same three. And these are the same three - it so happens - which are found to be offered with the same specific details in two of the writings of Flavius Josephus ("Antiquity of the Jews" and "Jewish War"). Yet the writings of Josephus contain not only more detail, but more accurate information, showing that it was the original source for all three.

So none of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses, none were written by Mark, none were written by Matthew, none were written by Luke, and none were written by John. They are all anonymous writings from non-witnesses.

Also, if you study the 6 days side by side, you'll find a recipe in there. List the 6 in this way. first 3 on one side, the other 3 on the other. The first 3 were separations of the Earth's elements (sky, water, land, etc.). The other days explain the creatures and beings that reside in the parallel day. Allow me to show a model.

http://www.theology21.com...

And? So what? That's only because you can't put plants, animals and water on a non-existent planet. There's no other way to arrange them. But the order given for the various components is still quite fallacious. You can't have Earth before stars, liquid water before an atmosphere, liquid water before the sun, or plants before the sun. And Genesis claims all four of those invalid conditions.

Before you hasten to drop the literal 6-days in the trash, don't forget to check the actual text of the Bible; specifically...

(Genesis 1:5) And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

(Genesis 1:8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

(Genesis 1:13) And the evening and the morning were the third day.

(Genesis 1:19) And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

(Genesis 1:23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

(Genesis 1:31) 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.

So how many times does Genesis tell us that a "day" was the period between evening and morning (as was customary for the ancient Jews)? Let's count them; twice in verse 5, and once each in verses 8,

If Matthew was the first in the gospel, didn't that mean he was being copied from? He wrote more chapters than the others.

And I'm not only showing Hugh Ross's argument on Genesis 1-11, but I'm showing why Genesis 1-11 in my eyes is a story of fiction that is merely a parable or poem with repetitive language and adjectives to describe certain things. I am a th
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:26:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 8:22:51 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:24:53 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/26/2014 3:39:43 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 3:32:20 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 2:26:44 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:24:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:21:31 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 1:17:19 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:45:42 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/26/2014 12:43:21 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

Creationists against Creationists? For real?

There is Young Earth ones like Ken Ham, but then there is people like Hugh Ross who believes that the earth is billions of years old and was created by God.

"The Earth is billions of years old and was created by God"...that statement is self-contradicting in my honest opinion.

How so?

If all life is a product of evolution, how can it also be true that God created?

I believe that he is the one who came up with the system. Just like I believe he came up with the laws of physics.

Shouldn't you change the religion stated on your profile to "Deist", then?
If you believe that God was the "first cause" but then he left everything alone to develop on its own with no intervention on His own part, then that's what you are, correct?

There are Christian Deists like Thomas Jefferson. But no. I still believe in holy intervention at times.

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot let this misnomer stand. Thomas Jefferson was adamantly opposed to religion and clergy. Jefferson was not, by any stretch of imagination, a christian. He was deistic, but loathed the hypocrisy and immoral behavior of the church and its loudest proponents.

He was against organized religion and the clergy. He believed Jesus was a moral teacher and had a bible, but the deist pasty is when he didn't believe there was a trinity, supernatural occurances, and the famous Jefferson bible is basically the bible with pages ripped out of anything referring to the supernatural. So he was a Christian in the sense that he thought Jesus was a good moral teacher, but denied about everything else in Christianity.

However if I am wrong about that, please correct me because I don't want to get that wrong.

That is basically correct. However, if you delve into his letters and writings, you'll find he loathed all supernatural teachings. The teachings of the messiah that Jefferson espoused were only the parts that included how we as humans were to treat one another.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The "christian" part (the part with all the BS claims and assertions) was what was removed, by him. The remainder (all the christian trash) was omitted. That is what Jefferson thought about christianity, and the clergy, and the bible... He didn't think much of "christianity..." That makes him a moral man, not a christian.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:29:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 8:26:05 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:33:56 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

I also can't help but notice that Ham won't let Ross complete a thought, without interrupting him. He employs the Bill O'Reilly redneck debate tactics. In that tactic, the winner is not the one that presents the best arguments, but the one that speaks the loudest, and PREVENTS his opponent from presenting ANY argument... Ham, Hovind, and Comfort are absolute, complete babbling idiots...

That's what I hope people notice. That these people just like to talk talk talk while people like Hugh Ross are actually explaining science that he is involved in with scripture. What got my nerves more was when the host said "Could you dumb that down to a 3rd grade level?" I feel like if the show was in England, this wouldn't happen. I advocate we need to make science part of the core curriculum more.

Modern christianity can't tolerate that. Reason is the enemy of the church. It always has been. It always will be.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 11:29:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hugh Ross is an Old Earth Creationist (as opposed to Young Earth Creationist). It's not a contradiction but I think it's probably unmotivated.

And Old Earth Creationist is distinct from a Theistic Evolutionist.

The More You Know.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:03:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 11:29:27 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/27/2014 8:26:05 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:33:56 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

I also can't help but notice that Ham won't let Ross complete a thought, without interrupting him. He employs the Bill O'Reilly redneck debate tactics. In that tactic, the winner is not the one that presents the best arguments, but the one that speaks the loudest, and PREVENTS his opponent from presenting ANY argument... Ham, Hovind, and Comfort are absolute, complete babbling idiots...

That's what I hope people notice. That these people just like to talk talk talk while people like Hugh Ross are actually explaining science that he is involved in with scripture. What got my nerves more was when the host said "Could you dumb that down to a 3rd grade level?" I feel like if the show was in England, this wouldn't happen. I advocate we need to make science part of the core curriculum more.

Modern christianity can't tolerate that. Reason is the enemy of the church. It always has been. It always will be.

Which is why I hope a reasonable christian reformation happens.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2014 12:54:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/27/2014 12:03:41 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/27/2014 11:29:27 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/27/2014 8:26:05 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/27/2014 3:33:56 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 10/25/2014 11:32:56 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
So I was scrambling around the Internet one day and after doing some looks into John Lennox's lectures about Seven Days That Divide The World, I found an Interesting debate. It was a group discussion on a show on TBN. The theme was "Age of Creation." I saw Ken Ham, Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort and thought 'this can't be good'. However, something surprised me. There was a man by the name of Hugh Ross on there. He looked old, wise and believed in a billion year earth. I thought this was neat, even though he was a creationist still. So when he actually tried explaining science helping him to see God, the host politely tries to ask if he can "dumb down what he says" and Ken goes on to say man is a sinner. Anyways, I'm going to post the video and I would like to hear what you guys think of the conversation and Hugh Ross/Ken Ham.

http://youtu.be...

I also can't help but notice that Ham won't let Ross complete a thought, without interrupting him. He employs the Bill O'Reilly redneck debate tactics. In that tactic, the winner is not the one that presents the best arguments, but the one that speaks the loudest, and PREVENTS his opponent from presenting ANY argument... Ham, Hovind, and Comfort are absolute, complete babbling idiots...

That's what I hope people notice. That these people just like to talk talk talk while people like Hugh Ross are actually explaining science that he is involved in with scripture. What got my nerves more was when the host said "Could you dumb that down to a 3rd grade level?" I feel like if the show was in England, this wouldn't happen. I advocate we need to make science part of the core curriculum more.

Modern christianity can't tolerate that. Reason is the enemy of the church. It always has been. It always will be.

Which is why I hope a reasonable christian reformation happens.

That's never going to happen. Religion is far too entrenched, and it's nothing but a business, anyway. There is no way to "reform" a rotted piece of fruit... Once it has rotted, it's inedible and, often, unpalatable.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein