Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree! All our ''creation stances'' are inventions of our fleshly minds, as the arguments that often accompany them testify.

So why do you think that our doctrines concerning our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds," but our doctrines we call things like "biblical inerrancy," "salvation by grace through faith alone," "sola scriptura," "sin," "baptism," and "the Trinity," among hundreds of others aren't just "inventions of our fleshly minds"?

All doctrines are unimportant, all we have to do is believe in Jesus.

I like that doctrine. I'll call it "Danielism" and sign up.

So . . . wait . . . why is it that our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds" but "Danielism" isn't?

RickD wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree! All our ''creation stances'' are inventions of our fleshly minds, as the arguments that often accompany them testify.

So why do you think that our doctrines concerning our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds," but our doctrines we call things like "biblical inerrancy," "salvation by grace through faith alone," "sola scriptura," "sin," "baptism," and "the Trinity," among hundreds of others aren't just "inventions of our fleshly minds"?

Jac, your Doctrines on biblical inerrancy, salvation by grace through faith, sola Scriptura, sin, baptism, and the trinity, are from God. But your YEC creation stance is from your fleshly mind.

I like that doctrine, too! I'll call it "Clownism," and I will preach it from now on.

But . . . wait . . . why is it that our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds" but "Clownism" isn't?

------------------

Seriously, it's self-defeating to say that some doctrines are of human creation and others are not, because any such statement is itself doctrinal. You can certainly say that some doctrines are less important and offer a defense for that claim--i.e., issues that directly affect the gospel are more important than those that don't, but our doctrines concerning creation do not directly affect the gospel, therefore our doctrines concerning creation do not directly affect the gospel. I would even buy that for real! But we don't get to say that one doctrine is a human invention and another from God, that one is from "our fleshly minds" and the other not. It seems to me that, in the present context, such an argument is made solely to dismiss debates over the doctrine of creation. And if you're going to that, I'd prefer you just say, "You know, I don't really care about that debate," which is fine and can't be argued with, than putting forward . . . something less than sound.

I take it, by the way Rick, that you were being silly, just poking fun. But all the same, I think the point is worth making.

Jac3510 wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I like that doctrine. I'll call it "Danielism" and sign up.

So . . . wait . . . why is it that our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds" but "Danielism" isn't?

I think Jesusism would be more appropriate since he said it.

Jac3510 wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I agree! All our ''creation stances'' are inventions of our fleshly minds, as the arguments that often accompany them testify.

So why do you think that our doctrines concerning our "creation stances" are just "inventions of our fleshly minds," but our doctrines we call things like "biblical inerrancy," "salvation by grace through faith alone," "sola scriptura," "sin," "baptism," and "the Trinity," among hundreds of others aren't just "inventions of our fleshly minds"?

Uh...just the creation stances are from sin. I go with what is plainly written in Genesis and leave the dogfights to others. YEC/OEC/PC/TE/ fights are so juvenile!

FL

PS: As Jac said, ''you know, I really don't care about that debate.'' Yes, this would be my position on creation stances. But the Earth is young and you'll all BURN IN HELL if you don't believe it!

My creation stance is - undecided.

However it is truth that we share a common Ancestor with Apes. What I mean is were there any not humans but desdesents

UsagiTsukino wrote:However it is truth that we share a common Ancestor with Apes. What I mean is were there any not humans but desdesents

I think something is lost in the translation here. Please rephrase using proper english so we can understand.

-

From then by we evolved and now - currently

Can't be by who mentioned marriage of two humans - man and woman to and so that would continue...

No it must be + times eons =

Ya think???
-
-
-

Do you, B.W. have enough smilies at disposal to make your posts? Or you meed some more?

1over137 wrote:Do you, B.W. have enough smilies at disposal to make your posts? Or you meed some more?

He doesn't need any more smilies. What he needs is a like button.

Jac3510 wrote:

1over137 wrote:Do you, B.W. have enough smilies at disposal to make your posts? Or you meed some more?

He doesn't need any more smilies. What he needs is a like button.

I already looked for mods. One abandonded and one maybe installable.

1over137 wrote:Do you, B.W. have enough smilies at disposal to make your posts? Or you meed some more?

Yes a few more and hieroglyph's would be back in style!

I was actually thinking of formulas like this but the parentheses don't quite line up:

Eons ( + )=

The others need a bit more work for basic algebra formulas to look right

Can you image math / algebra / physics in smilies!!!
-
-
-

+ + =

+ EONS =

EVOLUTION =

( + ) + ( x ) = Y.E.C