Will creationism ever regain ground in the world before the second coming of Jesus? Will the increase in knowledge in the latter end times turn people to accepting that the world was created?
Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wiktionary.org
twitter.com
I hate to say it, but only if Muslims slaughter a bunch of people. I'd rather they didn't it.
It never had ground.
It's just rambling literalist nonsense.
American creationism thrash?
Never. If the world keeps going for a few more centuries it will continue to change to a point beyond the stupidity that humans and dinossaurs lived together. I'd rather admit they didn't exists.
Now if you talk about the creationism defended by the Church Fathers or St. Thomas Aquinas, pretty sure once people start falling for the bait that one can extrapolate natural selection over millions of years, being impossible to prove that on a scientifical basis.
I guess most of the Church fathers and Jesus were just rambling literalists, then.
Not "billions of years after an endless cycle of death before Adam".
From Luke:
Not "billions of years after the foundation of the world", and Abel was a real, literal person.
Personally, I choose to believe Christ, not a brand-new interpretation incorporating a historically recent theory created to explain the creation of life from non-life without God. The theory of evolution in all its iterations requires a demiurge, not the true God revealed to us, who made all things "very good" from the beginning.
What about dinosaurs?
From whose beginning? Man's beginning, or the world's beginning?
Is the foundation of the world the beginning of the world?
What about them?
Why are you even asking this question? They mean exactly the same thing.
This. I find no trouble if the world has billions of years.
And even if we take the works to mean 7 exact days men wasn't created on the beggining of the world, but at the 6th day.
So that's not an argument.
The theory of the big bang is basically a proof that real creationism exists, against the atheists of that time refused to believe, until experiment gave a possible proof for it.
What we must deny is the fags that say man came by evolution.
Adam and Eve are as real as everyone here, and they were the very first human beings and everyone that ever existed came from them.
Because the beginning of a thing need not be its foundation. The foundations of a house are only laid after their beds have been dug and the ground leveled and cleared. Work on it begins before the foundations are laid.
I poohing hate people with this type of argument. You are literally the scum of the Earth when you just simply flat out say such things and dare condemn others as faithless.
I'm not even going to bother proving how you crap on scripture with narrow mindedness and complete lack of contextual knowledge about the writing style of its original, let alone provide quotes that flatten your nonsensical doctrine.
Have fun living in your narrow little world of the blind leading the blind and trying to poke out the eyes of the seeing.
I’m literally not “crapping in scripture”. That is a false accusation, and using personal insults will not convince anyone that you are correct. In fact, personal insults are against rule 2 of this board. All forms of modernism absolutely must be rejected, and retroactively trying to alter scripture to fit whatever new theory has been invented to explain the world *without* God must be rejected. Evolutionary theory is Gnosticism pretending to be science, as evidenced by the supposedly required cycle of death and animals becoming more and more like God. And before you start with the “well, what is death really?” meme, it is Biblically defined as when an organism stops breathing. Which, again, is required for evolution to work.
Bull.
I've met too many creationists to know them than anything but arrogant people who outright DENY proven science and when you start calling them out, they scuttle into their little mental dens where they're the only good ones, the only one who understand scripture, in which they put all their faith. This is literally a defeatist ideology.
You scum don't even understand evolution, but just crush at its crack. You're literally no better than people like Krauss or Dawkins, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.
And you say you can't handle insults? Well maybe if you'd put effort in your stupid ideas instead of just falling on base literalist understanding, maybe people wouldn't laugh and scorn at you idiots.
The only good creationist was Chuck Missler, God bless his soul. And then because he was subbtle and scientific about it.
The rest of you are just spazing autists that feed your very opposition with your stupidity.
Dishonesty must be scorned upon.
Different person but I have a question. Why does it matter if possible believe in litetal creation or not? Is it more important that we focus on the future to be good Christians rather than something that happened in the past? Why do you act as if it's the most important thing a Christian should focus on?
The truth must be sought, but only by faith will you able to understand it.
Their faith is in vanity and they distort the truth. They're the Inquisitor that Fyodor Dostoevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamazov.
I didn’t say I can’t handle insults, I’m saying failure to comply with the rules of this board can potentially result in a ban.
I am not being unscientific, evolution is not settled science. The secular world has latched onto it because it allows them to believe that everything came form nothing. On that basis, it should be opposed, and every claim by secular science in in direct opposition to the narrative of Genesis. Genesis is written in historical prose, and was placed into the inspired word.
Subscribing to creationism doesn't save you. Faith does.
You think I care if I get banned for calling you people out on your perpetual nonsense?
Evolution is far more settled in truth than creationism and that's a fact.
And again, you're literal scum for drawing the Bible into a scientific argument. That way you demean it and, again, you turn rationalists against the faith.
It is not settled science; all transition art forms are eventually discovered to be “separate branches” or straight up fraudulent. Even scientism’s venerated Tiktaalik has Ben show to have had unattached shoulder girdles, meaning that it could not hold itself up off the ground.
YOU are the one resorting to childish, hateful name-calling.
So let me get this straight.
Because evolution has some ticks, thought it's still being built on rationality and evidence, this makes it lesser compared to creationism, which is literal medieval make-believe and false interpretation?
Ok.
Nothing you just said is correct.
Evolutionary theory has been completely re-written multiple times, because it always turns out to be wrong, again and again. That’s not just “some tics”.
And medieval make believe? Are you serious? This view has been held by the church since the first century. The church fathers who interpret it non-literally were always outliers, and none of them ever believed that man came from lower animals.
...
Why don’t you do your own research instead of using some secular scientist as a secondhand source?
Nothing in the image I posted is false. Read the Bible yourself and see the order described there, and compare it to the order of events given in most secular interpretations of world history.
I don't, more importantly no one oversteps their boundaries more than Hovind does. He has a degree in Christian education from a diploma mill, and then has the audacity to openly mock anyone who devoted several years of their life to studying and researching these topics in their given field. If you think I'm objecting to Hovind solely because he's a Christian, you're dead wrong.
Depends on how one reads it, just as with any other portion of the Bible. How else would we have so many denominations and interpretations?
We have so many different interpretations because rather than accept that there can be only one correct interpretation of the word of God, people decide to ignore the parts that make them uncomfortable. There should be only one denomination.
Aside from that, interpreting Genesis to fit secular science requires essentially inverting every part of the narrative.
Because heretics splitted from the Church following their vain wisdom.
Uh-huh.
It's like talking to the missing link.
Yes, it has. Modern evolutionary synthesis barely resembles the evolutionary theory of the 50s.
What are you talking about?
Where do they fit into all this?
Standard response would be them either (A) living along side us for a time or (B) they never existed and God was just messing with us. Either presents a lot of issues, as do other forms of life from different time periods. Lots of handwaving
He's right though. Denying what Jesus or the Church fathers said is making them out to be idiots. And you may as well just give up your faith. It'd be no different.
I'd prefer you didn't though. I see that you'd rather not. But you're not thinking through the implications of questioning any of this. It leads to damning positions.
Look up Kent Hovind's seminars on dinosaurs on YT
Yeah I think this is the biggest problem with YEC, but thats not to say Darwinism is legit either.
...
I meant more in a derogatory fashion, as though it's just another "-ism" in the long list of them that all good little American protties are meant to hate.