Evolution Trumps Creationism

[Tonus]

And then ask yourself which of the listed groups uses force, persuasion, threats and intimidation to get others to join/stay in the group, and which don't.

[Waratah]

You have stated that your ministry and belief relies wholly on the fact of a/s/k. If your faith is so strong why do you keep avoiding my posts?

How many knocks will it take to equal an ask(with evidence please)?

Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must seek in luke 11.
Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must knock in luke 11.
I have already followed the instructions on asking in luke 11 and no holy spirit.

I have avoided you posts because Not everyone can play on the same level, so as a curtouesy I turned the other cheek,

What do you mean here? I am confused.

even after I pointed out you have made an assertion that Seek and knock are not apart of the parable Christ Himself explains in Luke 11, when I showed you Jesus clearly mentions it on page. I asked you to either contextually validate your statement or change it to fit everything Christ says in luke 11. Your only response is to pretend that Christ did not say we must Seek and knock, and then pretend that I am hiding from you?!?!

You are lying again drich. Here is where I pointed out to you the reasons why seek and knock are not part of the parable. (Separating links) Here is my next post with your reply of my post. After that post you did not reply in that thread. The beginning of your "hiding" maybe? So you have still not shown me where in the parable(not page) is the seeking and knocking. What you keep on ignoring is my requests for you to show me where in luke 11 does it say you must seek and/or knock to receive the holy spirit. This is your assertion which you need to back up with evidence. As soon as you can prove that seek and knock is needed to receive the holy spirit I will not be able to "pretend" anymore. Here is you chance to show how much of a fool I am.

When if fact I have pointed out a fatal flaw in your exegesis of Luke 11. If you will not answer my challenge to you to fix or contextually validate your assertion, then why oh why should I give you any more of my time, other than to point out that you are a fool that doesn't know what he is doing/talking about, or despite the evidence otherwise hope that I don't know what I am doing or talking about. whatever the reason you choose for yourself that still makes you a fool.[/quote]What fatal flaw?

If you want to play, then it will be by my rules. My rules dictate that your exegesis/explaination of scripture must account for ALL of what Christ says do in Luke 11 He explains the parable and says we must Ask, Seek, and Knock, not just ask like you said. If you want to continue to cherry pick and ignore what the bible says then I have nothing more to say.
It's as simple as that.

Here is drich trying to set up his out, "my rules". Again drich please show me where he says we must seek and/or knock to receive the holy spirit. Since I am not trying to find anything other than the holy spirit which you need to ask to receive it, not seek. I do not need to knock since I am not trying to open any doors. Now once again I have accounted for ALL of what I must do to receive the holy spirit.

Luke 11:
9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...rsion=NKJV

Do you see it now? Or do you need to me to help you make yourself look more foolish?

Oh drich here is the important line that is missing.

13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

If the seeking and knocking was a must then it would say something like this:

13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him, seek and knock!”

Your post only answered one part of my post. So I am highlighting the rest of the post for you. The actual important part.

How many knocks will it take to equal an ask(with evidence please)?

Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must seek in luke 11.
Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must knock in luke 11.

[Esquilax]

God created Adam potentially millions of years before evolved man came on the scene. Maybe God wanted someone like Adam to share creation with.

God must be fairly antisocial if he felt two people was an acceptable number of friends for millions of years, then.

The Flood is the great bottle neck that eliminated all soulless humans. Maybe soulless man was the reason though his capsity of tremoundous wickedness God caused the great flood. No soul/No consciencous.)

Just you keep calling that god moral, huh?

Actually they don't. YEC's theology is loosly based on a Catholic dortrine of orginal sin, not the bible itself.

Fair enough, though my initial point was that others get a different interpretation from the same material, and how do we tell which is correct?

I simply Speak where the bible speaks and remain silent where it is silent. Got to remember biblically the only think I am saying is that there is not time line in the bible between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3. Catholic doctrine mandates these events were less than a generation (aprox 30 years apart) Some insist that Genesis 3 happened on day 8 of creation.. Again With no time line All of Evolution can fit, thus answering quite a few other questions in the creation account.

I'm not saying they happened, just that it is now possiable something like that could happen which again answers a lot of questions.

Sure, but I guess I'm still not interested in what answer resolves the most open questions, but rather which answer is true. Besides, you're still leading the evidence from the basis that the words in the bible are true, rather than allowing the evidence to take you to the truth unimpeded.

Again completely speculating... When people use to ask me what I thought was true about the orgins of the world I would say I know what the bible says, and I know what evolution says (Which is a whole lot more than any of you give me credit for) But I'm not sure what happened. No one does, and it is ok to say I don't know what happened..
Then one day I got tired of not knowing so I prayed about it, and one day while answering one of your/don't remember who exactly questions All of this was just down loaded instantly.. I just started typing and it came so quickly I had to read everything I had written in order to understand it all myself. I was writing and did not even know all that I was saying. After I read it I was like whoa, holy crap where did all of that come from? Then I started to look stuff up. After a week or two I posted it under it's own thread title, and a week later on a Christian site. Then it has been discussed 2 more times in different threads here and at least 2 other times on two other Christian sites. A doctor in theology has looked at it, and there is some research going behind this theory on a high academic level to biblically 'proof'/clean it up. All in all there are over 1500 different posts and or emails concerning this topic, and to date outside of the demand for absolute proof the atheist want, and the charges of undefined heresy from YEC's, this theory has held water and been unchanged or unchallenged in almost a year and 1/2 time.

If you're speculating that's fine, but I guess the next thing I'd have to ask is, how could one falsify this idea you've got? Falsifiability is key to scientific endeavors, after all; can you propose a mechanism by which we can test this? I mean, it can hardly be considered to hold water if it has never been tested.

Do you not remember my whole soapbox on dinosaur fossils? Mainly the stegosaurus? The absolutes you hold to as absolutes are empty shadows. Honestly question and scrutinize what you believe look at all of it like you would look at the bible and you will find yourself in the boat I was in. "I know what the bible says and I know what science says, and I know the truth, but I don't know what happened at the start of time. No one but God can know that.. Then where does that leave you? With what God has endorsed, and a fossile record plus anywhere from 1 to a dozen other possiable theories all designed to explain the fossile record and our orgins.

My point was that knowledge is demonstrated, beliefs are just held. You can't claim to know what you cannot demonstrate to be true. Also, I hold to no absolutes, but you know I'm not convinced that the bible is true in any regard; I'm holding it to the same standard I would any other claim, that's why I'm here asking questions. I don't mind entertaining ideas, just so long as there's more to them than "it is my belief that..."

Only Adam and Eve were immortal as per the tree of life, what makes you think nothing else died there?

That's the problem, I have so many different interpretations of Genesis to work from, it's kind of hard to nail the details down. The boys at the creation museum seem to think that death was a product of the fall, but I'll admit that my eyes tend to glaze over when I get near anything regarding that place, so maybe I missed something.

...Kinda like the Oil fields of the Middle east? Which are the largest oil deposits on the planet aside from what some speculate are beneath the ocean's floors. Which also proove that at somepoint in the History of the planet there was a massive organic life there that had been there for millions and millions if not billions of years, which now there is little to no evidence for.

Okay, so, you can't disagree with the premise my entire test was based upon, and then still use it to prove your point.

See what happens when you simply tell me what your looking for in the way of 'evidence?' Now if you could just define what 'proof of God' would look like to you then maybe we'll get to have sunday brunch together one day.

God would know what proof of god looks like to me. Why not ask him?

To be honest, all you need to do is swap out the noun for any other noun: my idea of proof of god is the same as my idea of proof of sandwich. I'm not putting a higher barrier of evidence before the god claim than I would any other claim.

[Drich]

2% of the world does not believe in any kind of God. That means the rest of us are 'delusional.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rel...opulations

You know when a man says or in this case 2% of men say the rest of the world is crazy.. It means the 2% minority has changed the definition of 'crazy' so as to justify their behavior to themselves...

Why can't you read a table?

From your link:

Code:

Christianity                                2.1 billion
Islam                                       1.5 billion
Secular*/Nonreligious*/Agnostic/Atheist     ≤ 1.1 billion
Hinduism                                    1 billion
Chinese traditional religion*               394 million

1.1Billion / 7billion ~ 15% of the world's population.
A bit far from your paltry 2%, wouldn't you say?

I see you were confused by the table allow me to paste the first line of the wiki page for you:
The CIA's World Factbook gives the world population as 7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.) and the distribution of religions as Christian 31.59% (of which Roman Catholic 18.85%, Protestant 8.15%, Orthodox 4.96%, Anglican 1.26%), Muslim 23.2%, Hindu 15.0%, Buddhist 7.1%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.2%, Baha'i 0.11%, other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01%. (2010 est.).

So I guess I do need to admit I was wrong as well. I said 2% when in fact I was off by .01%

Win some, loose some.

---

And then ask yourself which of the listed groups uses force, persuasion, threats and intimidation to get others to join/stay in the group, and which don't.

Lets give you the benfit of the doubt, and say 1/2 do. then what? that still leaves 1/3 of the world's population as being High functioning 'delousional' people.

Which is still far and above over the 2.01% that claim everyone who believes in God is crazy.

[pocaracas]

Actually, the table is right...
The text, they got from the CIA factbook:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications...os/xx.html

while the table comes from a pew worldwide demographic study:
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/globa...cape-exec/
Where they state

At the same time, the new study by the Pew Forum also finds that roughly one-in-six people around the globe (1.1 billion, or 16%) have no religious affiliation. This makes the unaffiliated the third-largest religious group worldwide, behind Christians and Muslims, and about equal in size to the world’s Catholic population. Surveys indicate that many of the unaffiliated hold some religious or spiritual beliefs (such as belief in God or a universal spirit) even though they do not identify with a particular faith.

[...]
The Religiously Unaffiliated

The religiously unaffiliated population includes atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion in surveys. However, many of the religiously unaffiliated do hold religious or spiritual beliefs. For example, various surveys have found that belief in God or a higher power is shared by 7% of unaffiliated Chinese adults, 30% of unaffiliated French adults and 68% of unaffiliated U.S. adults.

Still more than 2%...

[Tonus]

I see you were confused by the table allow me to paste the first line of the wiki page for you:

But further down the page, in the notes, it says:

Nonreligious includes agnostic, atheist, secular humanist, and people answering 'none' or no religious preference. Half of this group is theistic but nonreligious. According to a 2012 study by Gallup International "59% of the world said that they think of themselves as religious person [sic], 23% think of themselves as not religious whereas 13% think of themselves as convinced atheists".

Now you're looking at 13% being atheists and 36% claiming not to be religious and a total of 41% not professing to be religious. That's a slight bit more than 2.01%.

Lets give you the benfit of the doubt, and say 1/2 do. then what? that still leaves 1/3 of the world's population as being High functioning 'delousional' people.

It's a lot less in light of the second set of statistics.

[Drich]

So you have still not shown me where in the parable(not page) is the seeking and knocking.

Again Christ explains His own parable. In said explaination Christ Identifies or says the parable is about Asking, Seeking and Knocking.

Now because Christ gives this explaination about His own parable My exegesis that includes the Asking Seeking and Knocking is correct because it encorperates ALL of the Elements Christ Himself outlines..

You asked to see where the Seeking and Knocking was in the parable I showed you where in practice the neighbor sought and knocked, but because it is not spelled out in this particular translation (It was not narrated for you to see) you believe seeking and knock was not apart of the parable, but anyone with basic common sense would say that the fact that this man is out of his house so late at night looking for bread, means he is indeed seeking. The guy had to be seeking in order to ask. For if he were not seeking and he had just asked, the persistant neighbor would have been with in the confines of his own house, when he asked for bread. The fact that he was roaming the streets in the middle of the night meant he was SEEKING.

Again in the parable He knocked repeatedly. Meant he asked the guy who was in his house over and over and over and over and over again, till he got tired of him asking, got his butt out of bed and gave the pest what he wanted. Christ Identifies this as knocking.. But because in the story Christ did not narrate this knock you will not or can not recognize it...

Ironically enough your constiant pestering is a Great Example of this story and this over all principle in action.

For when you initially ASKED I gave you an answer, when you responded I assumed you did not have the capacity or you simply refused to acknoweledge the common sense needed to completely understand or process this story. But you kept Asking and Seeking which means you were knocking. And because you did these things so often I took the time out of my frustration with your obstinance to not only provide you with a connect the dots work sheet I connected the dots for you and explained them to you.

13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him, seek and knock!”

Your post only answered one part of my post. So I am highlighting the rest of the post for you. The actual important part.

It does say this. THE WHOLE STORY IS ABOUT A PERSISTANT NEGHIBOR WHO ASKED SOUGHT AND KNOCKED!!!!!

How can you in your mind ignore 7/8's of the passage and only focous on the last line? In order for this to work you must take and implement the WHOLE story, not just the last line.

How many knocks will it take to equal an ask(with evidence please)?

How many knocks did it take for the neighbor? One more than you are willing to give. Let me put it this way. What if the neighbor disclosed that he would only know for 5 mins before he left? What do you think the guy in bed would have done?

Just to spite the guy for coming over in the middle of the nigh I would think he would have waited Him out.

But because he was persistant and did not put a time frame on his knocking. He got what he wanted.

Allow me to further illustrate. I still knock. and I am flush with 'proof.' It goes beyond 'proof' into relationship at this point. I knock for further interaction, and Time with God.

Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must seek in luke 11.

Please show me exactly where it says to receive you must knock in luke 11.
[/quote]

Again in verse 9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

This is JESUS CHRIST'S Own Explaination of HIS Parable. You can Not Viably Argue this Point From a Christian Perspective. Christ is the Head of the Church, and it is Christ who Explains this principle. This argument is now completely over, even if you continue to knock. For at this point there is noting else to say. If your looking to userpt the authority of Christ to define and explain his own parables, then we are no longer dealing with Christianity, and as such I have no intrest in discussing what you think Christianity is or should be.

[Minimalist]

Again Christ explains His own parable.

No, Drippy. Whoever wrote the story and had his fictional jesus character speak those words is the inventor of the parable. You really do need to understand how fiction works.

[Doubting Thomas]

How many knocks did it take for the neighbor? One more than you are willing to give.

Typical bullshit. If you prayed to God numerous times to find your faith and you don't and then give up, if only you'd prayed one more time you'd have found Jesus. That's why Drich believes that his a/s/k always works, but for anyone who it doesn't work for if they'd only a/s/k'ed one more time then God probably would have revealed himself.

In other words, you have to keep seeking the Lord until you give in and become religious. Anyone who prays and doesn't get an answer just wasn't praying enough.

[Drich]

God must be fairly antisocial if he felt two people was an acceptable number of friends for millions of years, then.

It is what it is.
Whatever the reason He did it this way it was His call to make.

Just you keep calling that god moral, huh?

No. I call God Righteous. Morality is a crap standard that means nothing outside of your society or even your own generation.
'We' Do not have enough info to judge God here. You have no Idea the level of Evil a soulless man is capiable of. We are only told that this evil was so great it forshadowed everything before or ever shall be. If God let things like the holocaust go on to run it's course, Imagine the Evil needed to rest the entire world.

Fair enough, though my initial point was that others get a different interpretation from the same material, and how do we tell which is correct?

That's just it. We are only responsiable for what we can comprehend. If my comprehension leads me to be a YEC then that is all God will hold me accountable to. However if God gave you the capacity to understand what I have written here and yet you remain in disbelief or you only ever aspired to be a YEC then you would have much to answer for.

Remember God is the God of absolutes, but with the atonement Christ offers, we are not answerable to those absolutes anymore as believers. As the parable of the talents tells us we are only responsiable to what He gave us.

Sure, but I guess I'm still not interested in what answer resolves the most open questions, but rather which answer is true.

If you are honest with yourself you will find that truth will answer all of those questions, but at the same time not change what has already been written.

Besides, you're still leading the evidence from the basis that the words in the bible are true, rather than allowing the evidence to take you to the truth unimpeded.

Good observation, now ask me why I do this.
If you did, I would say I have found the bible to be 100% accurate. It gave me a way to test God, and to receive apart of God to interact with. Inorder to give me guidance, to answer my questions and yours, to teach me, and direct me with confidence and truth. I took that offer and allowed it to completely play out in my life. As a result of being faithful to everything I knew I was given I was given more, and more and more. Why? Because of what the bible told me was true. Now because this has been tested and proven in my life with out doubt, I personally know everything said is also true.

If you're speculating that's fine, but I guess the next thing I'd have to ask is, how could one falsify this idea you've got?

The linch pin is the fact that there is no time line between Genesis 2 and Genesis 3. If it can be proven that only a few years passed between Genesis 2&3 as previously believed by the Catholic Church, then everything falls apart.

Falsifiability is key to scientific endeavors, after all; can you propose a mechanism by which we can test this? I mean, it can hardly be considered to hold water if it has never been tested.

The other side of the coin to test my speculations on the specific happenings, is to prove evolution to be in error, or to prove the bible to be the ranting of some darkages pope.

My point was that knowledge is demonstrated, beliefs are just held. You can't claim to know what you cannot demonstrate to be true.

But I can demonstrate that there is no biblical time line between Gen 2&3 which makes all of this possiable, and truthfully that is all that is needed for some to take the bible seriously enough to take God up on his offer, and test Him as He has told us to do. Once the potential believer does that, then he will have his 'proof.'

Also, I hold to no absolutes, but you know I'm not convinced that the bible is true in any regard; I'm holding it to the same standard I would any other claim, that's why I'm here asking questions. I don't mind entertaining ideas, just so long as there's more to them than "it is my belief that..."

There can be much more so long as your willing to do what has been asked of you.

That's the problem, I have so many different interpretations of Genesis to work from, it's kind of hard to nail the details down.

Then put them aside as I did, and just read the bible for it's face value. If you do you will note that the bible says nothing about pepertuial immortality for everything on the planet. Only Adam and Eve shared that gift. Which makes that a non biblically supported teaching that supports some other doctrine.

The boys at the creation museum seem to think that death was a product of the fall, but I'll admit that my eyes tend to glaze over when I get near anything regarding that place, so maybe I missed something.

For Adam and Eve it most certainly was.

Okay, so, you can't disagree with the premise my entire test was based upon, and then still use it to prove your point.

I simply saw a question and what to me looked like a very obvious answer.

God would know what proof of god looks like to me. Why not ask him?

I know what it would Take, but you have to be honest enough with yourself to accept it when it is offered to you. The first step in that is to identify that 'truth' and hold on to it no matter where it leads you. As it is now you have an exit strageity, so long as you keep that backdoor open God Will not open the Front door for you.

To be honest, all you need to do is swap out the noun for any other noun: my idea of proof of god is the same as my idea of proof of sandwich. I'm not putting a higher barrier of evidence before the god claim than I would any other claim.

Then are you willing to accept that Proof of God would be being placed in the presents of God?