Why do we need salvation?

Hmmm, I do not see a PhD in biology there. Craig really is more qualified than you to speak on the topic.

But that is how things work. Those who are considered experts are those who have subjected themselves to the necessary training, who have studied the issues, who have done the lab work or the field work. These are the people who have enough information to judge the merits of a theory. The plain fact is that neither you nor I have the expertice to make a judgement.

That is why it is a logical fallacy to make an appeal to authority to someone who is not an expert in the subject.

Now, about all these people who really all qualified in evolutionary biology and geology and astronomy...

I see two possible situations if the earth really is not old and is as you claim, young. One, they are innocently wrong. Two, they are deliberately wrong.

Now, if the former, is it your opinion that all these folks who have studied the material intimately and who are out there everyday uncovering new observations that fit in and expand the theories are so incompetent in their own field that it takes non-experts to point out where they are wrong?

Or, if the latter, do you think that this is the grandest conspiracy ever known? Millions of scientists, you would have us believe, are all working together to suppress the truth. There are not really any ongoing studies or discoveries, it is all fabricated to weave a story. The geologists get together with the astronomers and the paleontologists to make sure all the stories work out.

Hard to believe that either could be the case.

 

And the valleys formed at Mt. St. Helens are quite unlike the valleys and canyons formed by slower processes.

Do you have a citation for your footprint claim?

 

Now, back to the question.

We need salvation because we are all sinners and can only be forgiven of these sins through the grace of God. Nothing we can do on our own is good enough.

To add to this requirement that if someone does not agree with your interpretation of events that the whole house falls down is nothing but your own human pride showing through. Same comment when questioning above what God might or might not consider "good."

 

Yes because two days of posts no more than a few sentences long that basically were nothing more than saying they agree with you was a thrilling "discussion."

Your opening post seems to have been constructed in manner to try and bait those who disagree with you. So I don't know why you are upset that it worked that way.

You do have an amazing ability to go along for days without really ever addressing anyhting that comes up. I am really curious on whether you think all of the scientists in the world are completely incompetent in their fields of expertice or if you believe that they are all in the grandest conspiracy ever known.

I just cannot figure out what the possible hope for the conspiracy would be. There are plenty of Christians who accept the old earht theories and who work in the fields, so it cnnot be some desire to bring down your interpretation of the Bible.

I guess the only thing to do now is to wait for the book adverts to start being appended to every post.

 

There have been posted here refutations of a literal flood based on suposition and speculation, which of course are presented as hard fact. Certain persons believe that there is no possibility that it ever happened. I daresay that for every argument against, there is also a very valid argument for..........

I asked a question:

This question has not been answered, perhaps because it would point out a certain contradiction in the logic used to refute the flood; that God would work a miracle and suspend natural law here in order to fulfill His purpose, but not there.

So then, let us take a look at a higher authority:

Jesus Himself said there was an ark, a flood, that Noah entered the ark, and that the flood carried them all away.

Please explain to us how it was that Jesus was confused on the issue?

 

Mike,

I believe that when God pronounced His creation "good", that there was literally heaven on earth...Perfect climate, perfect peace, an absolute paradise, and that man was in total fellowship with his creator, and that there was a harmony upon the earth such as has never been seen since.

 

AMEN Mike! The Bible says before man sinned against God, there was total peace, harmony, fellowship, love, purity, etc. between God and man upon the earth. In fact, the Bible even says, the Lord himself even dwelled on the earth with man (at least I think Genesis records that). The truth is, if you ask any Evolutionist, they'll say "No such time period on earth existed."

That's because, in Evolution, men have always been killing other men and killing animals for the sake of survival. Evolution trys to make it look like the life being lived by humans today is the life humans lived since the beginning of time. We know that's not true, why? Because the Bible says so. These are some reasons why Evolution is just plain foolish to me.

As the Bible says "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools in their hearts."

 

Hi Mike,

First, I apologize for leaving the topic of this thread......And I await with bated breath the answer to your question!

 

Sorry, "gentlemen", I seem to have landed in an "international backroom tirade"-- on Mars Hill".

I was answering the question: "Why do we need salvation?" The words of Jesus on the tree certainly reinforce the need for the question.

Perhaps some exerts from the Letter to the Romans are needed: "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God; there are none righteousness, not one".

Yes, SIN is the "death-blow" to homo sapiens and to evolution as well. Now what? Jesus paid it all.

Off subject: someone with letters says they found T-Rex remains with what appears to be not so fossilized blood vessels--even after millions of years.

When will we get out of the backrooms of Pinewood Studios and the Brothers of Warner.

Selah,

Bro. James, PhD. (Hard-knocks U.)

 

This seems to me to be a very twisted sort of logic.

You are saying that we should NOT trust his opinion on the matter precisely because he has actually studied the materials in question, would be considered an expert in the subject, and likely knows more about the topic than the rest of us put together.

How do you figure that again? </font>[/QUOTE]No, it is NOT twisted logic and you know it.

Assume that he has a degree in "Flat Earth Geology" (I know it doesn't exist, but I'm making a point here.) Then obviously, since I know that the Earth is not flat, I would assume that the reason he thinks it is -- is because it was pounded into his brain in school. Simple logic. Not twisted. You are the one doing the "spin" cycle here.

 

Your analogy fails precisely because there is not something called "Flat Earth Geology." If someone claimed to have such a thing, real geologists with real credentials would be the proper experts to counter any such claims.

Since biology is a real and well supported science, experts in biology are rightly pressumed to be experts over laymen such as you and me.

You are saying that we should not trust his opinion specifically because he is better trained and more knowledgable in the subject than any of us.

That just simply fails the test of logic. BUt it is a common enough tactic that when you fail to use a proper expert as a reference in a debate that it has its own name; an appeal to authority.

Craig, as an expert in the field, is an appropriate authority. You and I are not. His opinion counts. Ours does not.

No spin needed.

Since we are on that subject, I'll ask you the same questions I asked Mike when he talked about proper qualifications.

 

UT, Once one accepts the naturalistic premise evolution is one of the few coherent (used in the extreme sense) explanations available for origins.

Take the instance briefly mentioned above. Apparently some diggers have found some dinosaur bones in Montana that aren't fully fossilized and still contain soft tissue.

Rather than questioning the presuppositions about the 65 million year age dinosaur bones, these scientists speculate that there must have been some extraordinary conditions under which bones buried in sediment over the span of eons retained soft tissue.

The naturalistic paradigm limits the questions that can be asked as well as the answers that can be given.

One guy was even quoted as saying that there might be many examples of preserved soft tissue. According to him, scientists seldom cut dinosaur bones since they don't expect to find any soft tissue inside.

These folks are neither innocently wrong nor deliberately wrong in the sense that they are acting with malicious dishonesty. They have bought into a philosophical premise... or have been convinced that the naturalistic premise defines what is scientific.

 

Uteotw,

Biology, just like any other science is changing daily with the advancement of technology. Darwin's repeated reference to the "simple single cell" for example was blown out of the water with the advent of the electron microscope. The single cell is anything but simple!

Think of the advances in the field of DNA...

If you'll look into the various disciplines, I am sure you will find highly educated, dedicated individuals who will stand on opposite sides of the same question.

In my opinion, from what I have studied, looking honestly (yes, honestly) at both sides of the issue, the preponderance of evidence from all the physical sciences to me testifies against evolution and gives credence to special creation.

I don't take a man's word as automatic gospel, I want to look at the evidence and make up my own mind. Craig is obviously highly educated, and I respect that. However I disagree with his conclusions.

Once again I digress from the subject...

 

Everyone knows this is not true (that is, everyone except for one man).

</font>[/QUOTE]Let's see God said it was true.... and Craig says it is not. Who should I believe?

 

There is not even one chance in a centillions that the story of Noah’s Ark is a literal account of an historic event because it portrays the happening of things that are absolutely impossible. </font>[/QUOTE]"There is not a chance that the resurrection accounts in the gospel are literal accounts of an actual historic event because it portrays the happening of things that are absolutely impossible."

Please tell me the reason I should believe your statement and not believe the one I created above.

 

There is not even one chance in a centillions that the story of Noah’s Ark is a literal account of an historic event because it portrays the happening of things that are absolutely impossible. [/b]</font>[/QUOTE]So, according to YOU, the story in the Bible is FICTION. Fiction is a made up story, or---to be blunt---a LIE.

Did it EVER cross your mind that God does not require our stupid physical laws to do something like "save all of the world's animals from a world flood in in Ark?"

Why do you believe in the Miracles of Jesus turning water to wine, healing the sick, calming the storms, but you do not believe in miracles in the Old Testament?

Did God not do any work until He came to Earth as a man?