Creationists as Hyperevolutionists?

No, you are the one heading in that direction. Most Christians have more sense than that. They also have a much greater respect for the powers of their God than you do.We aren't the ones saying that the earth is young, that it was under a global flood and that all living forms were created in one week. Those who say things that are directly contraticted by what we see in the world around us and then say that we are being fooled because God made it that way are the ones who are saying God is a deceiver.It is those who say that, if the earth is old, if there was no flood and if it took many millions of years for life to reach it's current forms, then God doesn't exist that are trying to make every thinking, rational person believe that He doesn't.It seems that the creationists must be in secret league with that militant atheist Dawkins. They are trying so hard to make it easier and easier to disprove the existance of God. No wonder I've had more than one Christian tell me: "They aren't Christians, they are cultists."

---

Common sense isn't

But what 'evidence' do you have that God placed misevidence to deceive you? What misevidence are you talking about?

What evidence? Actually I don't know until you tell me what you believe He is telling us in the only other clues he left us (the Bible according to believers). Since it is not very complete on all topics of science, not very precise in what it is saying and has been subject to some mishandling by humans it seems reasonable to have a look at the rest of his handiwork where a great deal of detail is included even if it is not complete.If you say that the earth is only 6,000 years old you are calling God a liar.If you say that there was a world wide flood after that you are calling God a liar.But perhaps you aren't so blasphemous as that. It is just that some are and when their arguments are pushed far enough they end up with God the liar as their only way out.

---

Common sense isn't

Tell me where I disrespect the powers of GOD?!?! And no, I am not calling God the deciever, many of the evolutionists on this site still use that flawed or lying design example to try to make there point. Which is allowing that God exists, and if you believe God exists, you got that from the Bible, so you must also believe the rest of the Bible, so you must believe all literal statements made in the Bible.

Wow, that is just amazing.Doing a literary critique of a character in a book does not mean that you believe in the literal existence of this character, and believing parts of a book in no way means that ALL of the book is true.Gone With the Wind made some factual statements concerning the Civil War, this doesn't mean that everything written in the book is factual. Discussing this book and Scarlett's motivation for some of her actions doesn't mean that I believe that Scarlett is or was a real person.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

You are mixing up two rather distinct things. The "flawed design" is a part of what has to be considered if you are making an argument for intelligent design. Of course, ID'ers don't claim that it has to be God. Space aliens are also considered by at least some of them. However, looking at the nature of the design would then be necessary to conclude something about the designer. That is not what we are talking about here.The lying part is what we are discussing. I'm not sure that you have reached that point yet. I don't recall. I did say you might be heading in the direction.Here is why:
The earth appears to be old. It either is old or has been made to seem that way. If someone claims that the earth is actually 6,000 years old and that all the data makes it appear old because "God made it that way" then that someone is calling God a liar.If you aren't saying that then there is not a problem. As noted it doesn't in any way say that God does or does not exist. It simple says that if a person uses the "God fools you" argument to argue against scientific findings then they are saying a certain thing about that god. Even many of those who do believe that God exists recognize that this doesn't automatically make all the Bible true. It is very possible for part of a document to be right and others to be wrong. Though I would have to agree that if God did exist that would lend more credibility to more of the Bible. If I believed in God I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that Genesis is meant to be literally true. That is what leads to a God the liar problem and if I was a believer I certainly wouldn't want to believe that.

---

Common sense isn't[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-29-2004][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-29-2004][This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-29-2004]

God wrote the rocks, Man wrote the Bible.What the rocks tell us is true. What the Bible tells us may or may not be true. Parts of the Bible are true, parts are not. I have yet to see a "literalist" who actually believes everything in the Bible without "interpretation", AKA "not literal".

The non-admin counterpart really likes this statement.

quote:

---

God wrote the rocks, Man wrote the Bible.

---

That's a perk of being a moderator - One can get oneself the "last word", even if it is off-topic.Not that good discussion isn't happening, but this string (probably not unlike many others) has long and pretty much totally lost contact with the original topic.Closing it down.Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads