Did Dinosaurs co exist with Man?

[Havensdad]

Intelligent design, by contrast, teaches that biological complexity is not exclusively the result of material mechanisms but also requires intelligence, where the intelligence in question is not reducible to such mechanisms. The central issue, therefore, is not the relatedness of all organisms, or what typically is called common descent. Indeed, intelligent design is perfectly compatible with common descent. Rather, the central issue is how biological complexity emerged and whether intelligence played a pivotal role in its emergence.

William Dembski

Yet Dembski has asserted that he does not believe in common descent.

 

[webdog]

First, my rebuke was not harsh. I did not call anyone names "Snake" "idiot" etc. I stated my position, which included the fact that he is denying God's Word. That is my position. I am allowed to state it.

Second, I equated my directness, with Jesus' and Paul's rebuke of professed believers. Whether or not some of them were really believers (as Peter clearly was), is inconsequential. Judgment, and rebuke, is for believers. We are not to judge or rebuke unbelievers for their sin (see 1 Corinthians 5).



No, YOU are stating that a false teacher is ALWAYS an unbeliever. My position is that scripture does not say either way; false teachers can be believers, or unbelievers.

So YOU prove it from scripture.

2 Peter 2:1-3. Scripture never contradicts. Your turn.

 

[Havensdad]

2 Peter 2:1-3. Scripture never contradicts. Your turn.

All that says is that these false teachers bring in destructive heresies. It does not say ALL false teachers are unbelievers.

Try again.

 

[webdog]

All that says is that these false teachers bring in destructive heresies. It does not say ALL false teachers are unbelievers.

Try again.

You're kidding right? Why do believers need to be warned against other believers?

http://www.biblegateway.com/resourc...w-Henry/1Pet/Believers-Cautioned-Against-4113

Surely you can provide ONE passage supporting your view that a believer is called a false teacher in Scripture...just ONE!!

 

[tinytim]

Correct. There is not even any specific rule against calling someone an unbeliever, just a rule against "personal attacks" which some moderators have taken to mean calling someone an unbeliever.

However, asserting a doctrinal position is not a personal attack. I am allowed to BELIEVE something, and even to EXPRESS that belief. If I say "I believe that people who do not believe the scriptures are the Word of God, are not true believers," that is not attacking anyone. That is simply informing others of my doctrinal position.

It is silly that some want to make certain beliefs that they do not like, against the rules.

Then you are adding works to salvation.
NO where does the Bible say you must believe the Bible to be saved. YOU must believe in Christ. The Early church didn't have the NT.. but they were saved.

By saying someone has to agree with your perspective about the Bible in order to be saved is adding an additional requirement to salvation.

For by grace are you saved through faith.. faith that Christ shed his blood and rose again to save sinners..

Salvation is simple.

YOu are adding works to it. That is heretical.

BTW, I am YE myself.

 

[blackbird]

Then you are adding works to salvation.
NO where does the Bible say you must believe the Bible to be saved. YOU must believe in Christ. The Early church didn't have the NT.. but they were saved.

By saying someone has to agree with your perspective about the Bible in order to be saved is adding an additional requirement to salvation.

For by grace are you saved through faith.. faith that Christ shed his blood and rose again to save sinners..

Salvation is simple.

YOu are adding works to it. That is heretical.

BTW, I am YE myself.

No---they didn't have the NT-----------but they DID have Scripture(our OT) and the NT says that ALL Scripture is inspired by God----all means all--both New and Old--------just a word of thought here---think about it--if today all we had to go on was the OT--salvation would still be by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and His blood atonement

I am Young Earth!! T-Rex coexisted with Adam and ate straw like an Ox until Adam came in and threw a "monkey wrench" in the ecosystem

 

[quantumfaith]

Darwinism comprises a historical claim (common descent) and a naturalistic mechanism (natural selection operating on random variations), with the latter being used to justify the former. According to intelligent design, the Darwinian mechanism cannot bear the weight of common descent. Intelligent design therefore throws common descent into question but at the same time leaves open as a very live possibility that common descent is the case, albeit for reasons other than the Darwinian mechanism (Dembski 2002:315).



ID is a theory about the cause of complex biological information. Common descent (CD) is a theory about the modalities of implementation of that information. They are two separate theories about two different aspects of the problem, totally independent and totally compatible. In other words, one can affirm CD and ID, CD and Darwinian Evolution, or ID and not CD. However, if one believes in Darwinian Evolution, CD is a necessary implication.

CD theory exists in two forms, universal CD and partial CD. No one can deny that there are evidences for the theory of CD (such as ERVs, homologies and so on). That’s probably the reason why many IDists do accept CD. Others do not agree that those evidences are really convincing, or suggest that they may reflect in part common design. But ID theory, proper, has nothing to do with all that.

ID affirms that design is the key cause of complex biological information. The implementation of design can well be realized through common descent, that is through implementation of new information in existing biological beings. That can be done gradually or less gradually. All these are modalities of the implementation of information, and not causes of the information itself. ID theory is about causes.

 

[benlomand]

This ^. Evolution does not fit with a literal Bible.

 

[Havensdad]

Then you are adding works to salvation.
NO where does the Bible say you must believe the Bible to be saved. YOU must believe in Christ. The Early church didn't have the NT.. but they were saved.

By saying someone has to agree with your perspective about the Bible in order to be saved is adding an additional requirement to salvation.

For by grace are you saved through faith.. faith that Christ shed his blood and rose again to save sinners..

Salvation is simple.

YOu are adding works to it. That is heretical.

BTW, I am YE myself.

Uh, no. What you are saying is ridiculous. I guess, then, Mormons are saved? JW's? I guess I can believe Jesus is a sunflower, and as long as I "believe in Jesus" I am saved? Of Course not: I have to have faith in the God REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE.

How does faith come? Why, by the Word of God. If you don't believe it, you cannot have faith. You are wrong that the early church did not have the Scriptures. They did have the entirety of the New Testament, but they had the apostles themselves, and prophets. They also had the entire Old Testament.

It is heretical to say you can just "believe" in whatever to be saved...and not the God of the scriptures.

 

[Havensdad]

You're kidding right? Why do believers need to be warned against other believers?

Your kidding, right? Believers cannot say anything false or destructive? THATS your position?

Glad to know you think we are so sanctified.

http://www.biblegateway.com/resourc...w-Henry/1Pet/Believers-Cautioned-Against-4113

Surely you can provide ONE passage supporting your view that a believer is called a false teacher in Scripture...just ONE!!

Surely you can provide just ONE quote that says "All false teachers are unbelievers" ...Just one!!

 

[revmwc]

No---they didn't have the NT-----------but they DID have Scripture(our OT) and the NT says that ALL Scripture is inspired by God----all means all--both New and Old--------just a word of thought here---think about it--if today all we had to go on was the OT--salvation would still be by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and His blood atonement

I am Young Earth!! T-Rex coexisted with Adam and ate straw like an Ox until Adam came in and threw a "monkey wrench" in the ecosystem

The ecosystem of creation lasted until the flood, then after the flood God told Noah all things could be consumed including meat.

 

[quantumfaith]

Uh, no. What you are saying is ridiculous. I guess, then, Mormons are saved? JW's? I guess I can believe Jesus is a sunflower, and as long as I "believe in Jesus" I am saved? Of Course not: I have to have faith in the God REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE.

How does faith come? Why, by the Word of God. If you don't believe it, you cannot have faith. You are wrong that the early church did not have the Scriptures. They did have the entirety of the New Testament, but they had the apostles themselves, and prophets. They also had the entire Old Testament.

It is heretical to say you can just "believe" in whatever to be saved...and not the God of the scriptures.

Why the need to create your own version of what he said? He said simply with regard to salvation the following:

For by grace are you saved through faith.. faith that Christ shed his blood and rose again to save sinners..

Salvation is simple.


Are you interpreting for us what he said? Because you claim that he is saying you can just believe anything is woefully disengenuous.

You can correct me (which I am sure you will) your difficulty lies (as I see it) when someone does not believe all things exactly as you, then certainly THEY must be incorrect.

 

[Van]

The reductionistic, materialist Darwinian version of this process, which defines evolution in terms that purposely exclude God, reduces religious belief to groundless superstition left over from our smaller brained ancestors.

I rezimble that remark.

 

[quantumfaith]

The reductionistic, materialist Darwinian version of this process, which defines evolution in terms that purposely exclude God, reduces religious belief to groundless superstition left over from our smaller brained ancestors.

I rezimble that remark.

Me too!!!:thumbs:

 

[HankD]

Genesis 2:17 "YOU must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when YOU eat of it You will surely die.

Romans 5:12

Romans 5:12 is also clearly speaking of human sin, and by strong inference, the term "death" here likewise refers to human death. After all, no where does the Bible indicate that salvation is offered to any creatures except humans, or even that animals have souls or are capable of sin. In fact, in the creation record, animals are said to be embued with the "nefesh" where mankind has the "nefesh" and "neshama" (breath of God). Furthermore, the allusion to Adam's sin in this verse argues that it too discussing spiritual rather than physical death, Adam did not physically die the day he ate the forbidden fruit.

Hi Brother,

I thought I should address this issue of Adam physically dying on the day he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

Death is both physical and spiritual.

Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.​

thou shalt surely die - literally -"dying you shall die".​

In Hebrew it is the infinitive form of the verb to die followed by the imperfect. moth tamooth - tWmT'tAm

Physical death is a process as well as an event.​

In other words the process of physical death began on the day he ate the fruit and would terminate later with the event of his physical death.​

An Addendum: This interpretation is and has been debated. It has more than one translation, however "Dying you shall die" is by no means excluded completely.

AS in Young's literal translation:

YLT Genesis 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.

That it is physical:​

Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.​

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow appears to have understood this in a stanza of his poem A psalm of Life​

Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.​

HankD​

 

[webdog]

Your kidding, right? Believers cannot say anything false or destructive? THATS your position?

Glad to know you think we are so sanctified.



Surely you can provide just ONE quote that says "All false teachers are unbelievers" ...Just one!!

Like I thought...nothing. Not wasting my time with this, ask one of your professors, I don't have the time to quote each time it is used and you wouldn't believe it if I did. It's telling that you refuse to quote just one scripture supporting your belief a believer is called a false teacher.

 

[ashleysdad]

Like I thought...nothing. Not wasting my time with this, ask one of your professors, I don't have the time to quote each time it is used and you wouldn't believe it if I did. It's telling that you refuse to quote just one scripture supporting your belief a believer is called a false teacher.

Webdog, in your opinion is it possible for a true believer to teach a false or heretical doctrine? If no, why and if yes then what does this classify them as?

 

[Baptist4life]

After reading the last 14 pages, I have come to the conclusion that some people in here have more FAITH in science than they do in God.


And I have to agree with Havensdad.

 

[webdog]

Webdog, in your opinion is it possible for a true believer to teach a false or heretical doctrine? If no, why and if yes then what does this classify them as?

yes, if not we would all be clones believing the exact same thing. I was speaking of Scripture's use of "false teacher".

 

[Van]

An interesting side discussion, seemingly unrelated to the main discussion concerning what the Bible teaches concerning the age of creation, is whether believers can be "false teachers." Obviously, this depends on how you define "false teachers." Clearly "professing believers" teach opposites, so one or the other is teaching falsehood. Do we conclude that a born again believer would never hold and express views that miss the mark? That does not seem to be the message of the Bible. Can a believer "take scripture too far" and come to an erroneous conclusion such as the earth is (or is not) about 6000 years old. I think we can.

But if we define "false teachers" as those who "knowingly" mis-represent God's word for unholy motives, then I would agree the Bible suggests they are not actually believers, but wolves in sheeps clothing.