Intelligent Design and Creationism. Why they cannot co-exist

Originally posted by jake1997


I interpret that passage (u mean the 10th plague?) as...the egyptian children did not live past that point.
Plain and simple.

Now...How do you interpret this passage?

Exo 20:9 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work:

Verse 9 is our context.
It 'calibrates the clock', so to speak.

Exo 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

How long does this passage say it took God to create everything?

Originally posted by jake1997
How long does this passage say it took God to create everything?

If you puzzle it together with:

2 Peter 3:8–9 : ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

Anywhere from 6 days to far over 6000 years.

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by jake1997
How long does this passage say it took God to create everything?

If you puzzle it together with:

2 Peter 3:8–9 : ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

Anywhere from 6 days to far over 6000 years.

So your saying that the jews did their work and labored for far over 6000 years? and then rested?

Denied.

Depends from where you're standing. If you are one that places his beliefs in the Bible, then not only is it incompatible but also unnecessary. If you're not one that believes in the Bible then it is also unnecessary. Note that many people don't believe in the Bible and yet believe in God or a God. Hence people can believe ID because, God created a single celled organism and from there etc etc. However ID doesn't say that YHWH was the one that created it. It just says "God". I could go on with the many inconsistencies but in my opinion, that is the major one.

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by jake1997
How long does this passage say it took God to create everything?

If you puzzle it together with:

2 Peter 3:8–9 : ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

Anywhere from 6 days to far over 6000 years.

That verse has been taken out of its context and thus suits many theories of evolution. However in its context it says:

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness.

Peter is talking about a promise not creation. And not only that, but in that same chapter, verses 5 and 6, Peter confirms a deluge and the Creation of YHWH.



[edit on 21-7-2005 by joyouslyhumored]

Originally posted by joyouslyhumored
That verse has been taken out of its context and thus suits many theories of evolution.

Taking verses out of their context is all what fundamentalism, like that which jake adheres, is about. See, if I interpret it "the right way" (= my way), I can get it to support what I want it to support.

Originally posted by Simon666

Originally posted by joyouslyhumored
That verse has been taken out of its context and thus suits many theories of evolution.

Taking verses out of their context is all what fundamentalism, like that which jake adheres, is about. See, if I interpret it "the right way" (= my way), I can get it to support what I want it to support.

Ok..finally we have it. Above we see YOUR way. YOU see it THAT way.

Compare to

Originally posted by jake1997
I guess through everything we both said, it comes down to interpretation.

I say, Let the bible interpret itself. It always does. If it doesnt say that a day is a billion years...then its just a day as it says in exodus.
Let us take out the 'my interpretation' ... 'My view' ....'I feel that it says..."...and just let it say what it says.

Ignorance Denied. My work here is done

You have interpreted it YOUR way as well and portray it as THE way, considering all others heretics. You are a perfect match for an example of the meaning of fundamentalist.

[edit on 21-7-2005 by Simon666]

the bible is not racist, I dont know where you get that idea. but check this verse out. Acts 17:26 "and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth..." thats pretty much saying that all men are equal. (and women) how is the bible racist? mormon doctrine is racist if that is what you are really trying to refer to. but the bible itself is not. it claims that all men are created equal.

Originally posted by B1luetooth
the bible is not racist, I dont know where you get that idea. but check this verse out.

The entire premise of a "chosen people" just because of your bloodline (supposed to be from Abraham) is racist from day one.

Originally posted by B1luetooth
Acts 17:26 "and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth..." thats pretty much saying that all men are equal.

That just says all nations are of one blood, not that they're equal. But perhaps you could find a verse that says just that if you want to, you can find contradicting verses if you want to and pick a position and/or interpretation you like or were taught to like.

you know its funny how you always try to get in peoples way of learning. The bible is true and scientifically accurate. and if you want to test my knowledge go right ahead. but you know that the truth always becomes known no matter deep it is burried in lies.

B1luetooth,
the bible is historically accurate? Are you saying everything in the blble, or just the creation part or what?
Can you shed some light on your statement, please??

I believe that the bible is true, I believe the whole thing, I believe it from cover to cover. and you only find that the bible is false only when you twist its words or meaning. people often try to put different meaning to the bible and end up getting an answer that does not sounds like it is from God.
I also believe that the bible is scientifically accurate. I believe that nature is under Gods control. I believe that God has sees everything in the entire universe to include the non-matter things of this universe to include thoughts, feelings, emotions and other such things.
I believe that God is not limited by Time space or matter. I believe that he can be in yesterday and he can be in tomorrow. I believe basically that God is not limited by anything.
Eternal means outside of time. nothin to do with time. so that explains how God existed before the creation. I mean it is hard to accept because God cannot fit in our brains. if he could, he would not be worth worshipping.
I believe that God has set a purpose for us on this earth, and that would be for us to gain a relationship through Christ to God.
I believe that he did send his son to die for our sins so that we may have eternal life in heaven.

I believe that God created the universe in six days and that on the 7th day he rested.
I believe that he created every KIND of animal and variations from that has been the only type of evolution observed ever. I believe that man brought death into the world rather than millions of years of death bringing man into the world.
I believe that noahs flood formed all the layers of strata, the grand canyon, along with the coal seems and fossils.
I also believe that the earth used to have an additional layer above its atmophere that was made up of water probably in the form of ice that could have been held up by the meisner effect. this would explain why people lived to be over 900 years old. I believe that everything in the bible is true and that it tells us how to live a Godly life and how to get to heaven and most important, I believe that its the truth.
I dont know what else you want to know. I know that the bible doesn tell about everyones life. but I do believe the whole thing to be true.
anything else you want to know? im only here to help

2 Peter 3:8–9 : ‘But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.’

these verses are not talking about the creation. the verse in psalm 90:4 also says the same thing, only these verses are not talking about the creation, they are stating the fact that time means nothing to God. meaning God is not limited by time. and even if it were talking about the creation, that is only six thousand years. that is still way less than billions, and I dont think that adam lived to be 900,000 years old. adam did not live to be almost a million. Jesus was not in the grave for 3,000 years. we are not supposed to work for 6 days and take the rest of our lives off.

see this is what I mean when people try to twist scripture into what they want it to be. and this is why it seems false to many people.

how about reading a few verses before that one you quoted. read II Peter 3:3-8

If God created man, not woman, in his image, then please tell me what God needs balls and a penis for.

I wouldnt jump to the conclusion that God has those parts when he can just speak something into existence.
the question is assuming he is like man. when in fact it should be the other way around. God doesnt need to be fruitful and multiply. God can be everywhere and he can be nowhere. God can be inside your head. he knows your thoughts...
God doesnt need those parts.
Im sure Jesus did when he was here only because thats who the human anatomy works. its either a male or a female. I mean that would be pretty weird not having either parts.
but to answer your question, im not sure if God has balls of not, but your question implies that he is not god which is what you were probably trying to get at.

by the way you dont know if he has balls or if he doesnt.

Originally posted by B1luetooth
the question is assuming he is like man.

Well, everything in the bible points that way. For example, Jesus also refers to God as his father, not his mother, and since Jesus had no biological father, at least according to the bible, God must have used something allright to get Mary pregnant.

[edit on 26-7-2005 by Simon666]

I'm bumping this for a few reasons.

#1 - It's an important topic and needs to get back on track.

#2 - It's one of the few places where I can wholeheartedly agree with someone with which I share virtually no common ground (which is always nice) and get to actually defend Christianity (which is a pleasure) as opposed to merely beating back the misguided Crusaders that would do it harm.

And #3 - The direction of some of the other 'debates' I've observed desperately require this context going forward.

Two prior positions for review (at least in some part in agreement).

Originally posted by jake1997
ID.
I've seen it mentioned by darwinists. They dont like it.
Most christians I talk to think I.D. is just a fancy way of saying creationism.
Its not.

Originally posted by RANT
I don't believe in creationism, and certainly not young earth creationism, as I'm not self centered enough to think reality is a matrix built merely to deceive me. But there's no point in arguing with those that do. That's a position with at least integrity (assuming they've done the alternative research and made the decision for themselves). But ID is hardly a position at all. It's a contrived response to evolution theory not adequately either quite scientific or religious. What's the point in watering down both? There's no upside or point whatsoever. It's a cult of it's own creation. And it's every bit as much anti-Christian as it is anti-Scientific.

To expand on that and an observable phenomenon taking place all over this forum, look for these two arguments to come up time and again from the very same crusaders using ID and Creationism interchangeably (much like they do the word of God or "Dr" Kent Hovind).

A) - But evolution is just a theory similar to my own.

b) - But evolution is a just another religion similar to my own.

Which is it?

Religions aren't theories. At least they aren't supposed to be to those of actual faith.

And I'm fundamentally disturbed by those claiming to be of the Christian faith that are so determined to argue a point or sell a video or wedge their way into science class as to willingly render their professed Religion just a theory.

This is not a competition. And those supposedly of faith seeking to win at any cost are, in my opinion, paying dearly. Science will carry on regardless. Will pure faith survive it's own activism?

I'm telling you, all the offshoots and incarnations of this Brand X Activism aren't doing a thing but polluting Christianity. And once politics has bastardized Christianity into little more than a failed political party and the latest "Christian-Science" movement is done rendering faith little more than a pale pseudo science forever doomed to come in second in a head to head comparison of it's own misguided framing, then what?

Re-invent Christianity again to compete with the secular world some more? Who exactly do you think "wins" when you do that? Who? Oh I don't know. Let me think here. Could it be.... Satan?

[edit on 12-8-2005 by RANT]

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
ID is not a solely (c)hristian phenomena. ID actual is an attempt to bring into alignment many of the world’s creation beliefs with what science has discovered.

In your very attempt to defend ID from a "Christian" perspective, you perfectly revealed it for what it is... a new age cult. A movement. A melange. A little of this, a little of that, a splash of science and voilà!

And the political movement behind it is almost exclusively a US (thus "Christian") phenomenon.

My prior post I believe exposed the dangers to Christianity from a fundamental perspective quite adequately.

Now where's my Cadillac? Don't preachers get paid for this?

[edit on 12-8-2005 by RANT]

ID is not new age unless you want to call something that has been discussed since the turn of the century as being new age. New Age ideals are considered to be something to be from around 60's through 80's.
I am a Christian in that I have studied the Bible and I believe in it's teachings. I am not a Christian in that I subscribe to any organized religion due to the fact everyone of them have altered the Bible to promote thier own agendas.
Enjoy your jabs as I will not be here to take them.

Last post to this thread. as per my u2u to rant. I do not want to be accused of personal attacks again

[edit on 12-8-2005 by kenshiro2012]

Fair enough kenshiro2012 (on all counts).

But perhaps you can see that rejecting all organized religion (even while calling yourself Christian) indeed does put you at odds with the kind of Christianity to which I was referring, commonly known as fundamental. Which is the kind of Christianity that I (and apparently some fundamental Christians) am asserting is at odds with ID, or anything else that's come along outside a purely Biblical foundation regardless of whether it was 40 or 100 years ago.

We're all going to disagree on some things rather quickly. Especially semantics. Then further disparaging interpretations and beliefs goes without saying. And I will readily disagree with fundamentalists themselves as practically any discussions evolve as to whether something has a sound, logical Biblical foundation or is just more Politicized "New Age" Science Fiction (such as The RaptureTM or anything James Dobson says about raising children or a single word out of George Bush's mouth).

But the appeal fundamental Christianity has (at least for me) in providing a frame of reference or context for some of these discussions is nobody gets to just arbitrarily make things up. There is a rule book. It's called the Bible. And while it has no more place in a scientific discussion than I do, it does allow me to call BS on someone thumping it at me while insisting their behind is actually a hole in the ground.

That has to do with the logical basis of most all serious theological efforts and discourse over more than a millenia that I happen to find have a timeless value not to be outdone by every flim flam artist that comes along with a new pitch or take or something to sell while saying he's mostly "Christian" or Biblically "inspired" like some fictional story on the LifeTime Network may have shades of Truth as well.

I didn't reject modern Christianity; I just couldn't keep up!