Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Ok so then you have no problem with homosexual acts as mentioned in the Old Testament?...as a Saved Christian, the Laws of Leviticus don't apply to me.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17... but the verses that I quoted from Luke 6 are unfortunately STILL very true ... and apply to all Saved Christians.
So you accept only the NEW TESTAMENT as verbatum or not?
Since you say you don't have to live by the Old Testament I'm just trying to nail down what your "laws" are.
I mean if you are saying you don't have to accept the word of God in relation to how society should work then why do you have to accept it in realtion to how species evolved or when the Earth was created?I love you all ... and please forgive me ...
First of all I don't think I was offended by you so I don't know what i have to forgive.
Second of all who am I to judge you?
You will have to judge yourself and be honest with yourself.0 -
-
...they could be!!!Not really What are "fellow travellers" ?
Would they happen to be NON atheists who happen to agree with a rational argument and don't base all their belief on the verbatum words of the Bible? Would it be people who believe in Christian tradition? would it be people who existed in the foirst three centuries of Christianity when they didn't have any copy of the New Testament? People who went by oral tradition? Or is it only people who complain about you?0 -
... as Father Jack would say 'that would be an Eucuminical Question'!!!!:)Ok so then you have no problem with homosexual acts as mentioned in the Old Testament?
...and do you have a problem with the advocacy of crass discrimination based on religion?"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
... so it is.
.... we are all sinners in need of Gods mercy and none of us deserving it!!!:)
...some Laws and/or their application change!!!So you accept only the NEW TESTAMENT as verbatum or not?
Since you say you don't have to live by the Old Testament I'm just trying to nail down what your "laws" are.
I mean if you are saying you don't have to accept the word of God in relation to how society should work then why do you have to accept it in realtion to how species evolved or when the Earth was created?
As a Saved Christian I am no longer under Law ... I am under God's Grace ... and it's great ... you should try it sometime!!!:D0 -
...if that's ALL that 'evolution' is, we have no problem ... it's just the shuffling about of pre-existing CSI that was Created and Intelligently Designed by God to 'evolve'!!!:):DIt has been given to you a hundred times by a hundred different people time and time again and again.
From wikipedia.
In biology, evolution is a theory involving change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. Evolution has therefore been described as "descent with modification". Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, causing the emergence of new species.[1] Similarities among species suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor through this process of gradual divergence.[2]
The basis of evolution is the passing of genes from one generation to the next. Genes produce an organism's inherited traits, with a trait being a particular characteristic such as eye color or height. Genes vary within populations, so organisms show heritable differences (variation) in their traits. Evolution is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation in traits, and processes that make particular variants become more common or rare. The main processes producing variation are mutations in genes, or the transfer of genes between populations and between species. New combinations of existing genes are also produced by genetic recombination.
Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rare in a population. One is natural selection, which causes helpful traits (those that increase the chance of survival and reproduction) to become more common, and harmful traits to become increasingly rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, so more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits.[2][3] Natural selection acts at many levels, from individual genes to entire species.[4] Adaptations occur over many generations through successive, small, random changes in traits combined with natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment.[5] The other major mechanism driving evolution is genetic drift, an independent process that produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role that chance plays in whether a given trait will be passed on as individuals survive and reproduce.
Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology began in the mid-nineteenth century, when research into the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.[6][7] However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theories of natural selection were independently proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. In 1859, Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species brought the new theories of evolution by natural selection to a wide audience,[8] leading to the overwhelming acceptance of evolution among scientists.[9][10][11][12] In the 1930s, Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[13] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.[10][11][14] Evolution is therefore applied and studied in fields as diverse as ecology, psychology, paleontology, philosophy, medicine, agriculture and conservation biology.
...and I also noticed there wasn't a word about the Billions of years that Evolutionists confuse themselves with!!
...this Wiki article must have been written by a Creation Scientist ... they ARE everywhere!!!:D0 -
Advertisement
-
[QUOTE=J C;64502893
During the early 1930s the lives of the Jews weren't directly threatended. At the start they were merely excluded systematically from academia and the professions including science and they became the butt of Music Hall jokes and their livelihoods were generally 'messed-about' and they had to live an increasingly surreptitious existence.
They effectively became 'non-persons' hounded out of the public gaze with their rights and academic qualification gradually stripped away.
I know all about it, because my uncle served with the Allied Control Council after the war ... when some of the prime perpretators and the 'legal engineers' who facilitated these outrages were hunted down and brought to justice.
My uncle always endorsed the truism that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance ... and for evil and injustice to prevail, all it takes is for good people to remain SILENT!!!
...and don't think for a moment, that what happened to the Jews couldn't happen again to some other minority in some other part of the World.
We must always remember that Germany was a modern relatively wealthy high-tech country with a fully functioning legal system and a noble people with a broadly Christian culture.
My uncle told me a story about the trial of a Nazi prisoner who had been a judge. The Nazi judge said that he was only enforcing the law at all times and he claimed that he was personally revolted by the photos he had been shown of the Concentration Camps by the War Crimes Court. He said that he knew nothing about the terrible conditions in the Camps ... and he then turned and asked in disbelief "HOW could all this have happened?" ... and the War Crimes Officer hearing his case, told him that it happened the first time that he condemned a person that he knew to be innocent in his court !!!
Everybodys rights should therefore be respected and vindicated ... because if you tolerate discrimination or injustice against others ... it does have a nasty habit of turning up at your own door!!!
Some of my best friends are Evolutionists and indeed I also know and respect a number of Atheists. I find them all to be very nice people and I would be the first to come to their defence if they were threatened with discrimination ... and I have done so on this thread in the case of Prof Francis Collins and Dr Richard Sternberg ... who are both Evolutionists ... not because I agree with their worldview, because I don't ... but because the advocacy of discrimiation based on a man's faith (or lack therof) should NEVER be tolerated.
The positon that some Creationists find themselves today has parallels with the treatment of the Jews throughout history.
Creationist teachers are summarily sacked for even mentioning ID ... and ID proponents are excluded from teaching jobs, while Atheistic Evolution is compulsorly taught to Creationist children ... because it's the law.
The calls for me to identify myself and my scientific qualifications on this thread ... by guys openly advocating gross job discrimination against Creationists and the rescinding of their University degrees are very sinister indeed!!!
Some people, on this thread have engaged in open endorsement of job discrimination and open support for the sacking of Creationists from jobs within Academia. No sensure followed such outbursts and indeed nobody condemned them. The only reaction was to censure me, when I spoke the truth and condemned such advocacy of discrimination.
Creationists have become the new 'non-persons' of the 21st Century, apparently stripped of all rights to equality for themselves and their children ... and few people seem to care.[/QUOTE]
Your delusion is boundless. Comparing creationists to Jews in Nazi Germany???? I don't know whether its laughable or just sad that you have deluded yourself to such an extent. However, it is now very obvious that have only a very tenuous grasp of reality.
If any lurker wants any evidence of the type of self deluision that creationists routinely practise, just consider J Cs post above. Then consider the hundreds is falsehoods and misleading statements he has made on this thread. Enough already.
* By the way, I did say (earlier in this thread) that no one should be discriminated against for their private beliefs when it comes to hiring practices. As did Sam Vimes (and probably others). Go and check the posts - I can't be bothered to find the them, as there is no point in pointing out facts to someone that is so deluded. If a mod insists, I will find the relevant posts0 -
-
...I compared the treatment of Creationists with that meted out to Jews down through History. The misrepresentation and the advocacy of discrimination and the forced indoctrination of their children into the dominant religion of the time and the populist jokes on TV and other media ... all have parallells!!!equivariant wrote: »Your delusion is boundless. Comparing creationists to Jews in Nazi Germany???? I don't know whether its laughable or just sad that you have deluded yourself to such an extent. However, it is now very obvious that have only a very tenuous grasp of reality.
...and your allegation of 'insanity' against me ALSO has Nazi 'echos' ... amongst their propaganda, they claimed that the 'unfit' were congenitally 'insane' ... and they killed hundreds of thousands of people on that spurious basis as well!!!!!!!
...and you then promply confirmed that you wouldn't employ a Creationist if s/he was the last scientist on the Planet ... on the spurious self-serving idea that Creation Scientists aren't 'real' scientists!!!:(equivariant wrote: »* By the way, I did say (earlier in this thread) that no one should be discriminated against for their private beliefs when it comes to hiring practices. As did Sam Vimes (and probably others). Go and check the posts - I can't be bothered to find the them, as there is no point in pointing out facts to someone that is so deluded. If a mod insists, I will find the relevant posts0 -
...the Nazis ALSO spread the unfounded rumour that Jews were 'sabateurs' ... which was the 1930's equivalent of 'terrorists' today.Originally Posted by J C
...I would hope that, on mature reflection, you would see the error of comparing Creation Scientists with a Terrorist Organisation?
ISAW
I would compare them in that they are boith fundamentalist . just as the background of the Oklahoma Bombing was of a fundamentalist christian militia background. He was a terrorist but was so based on the same foundations of the Fundy Christians of the neoconservative or Libertarian Republicans. the comparison is valid in that sense.
so called "Christian" terrorists are no more valid as Christians than "Islamic" ones are as Muslims. but in the Us they seem to think all terrorists are Islamic. In fact the world record for suicide boimbing is held by a SECULAR group with Hindu background if any.
i recon Far more death and destruction was done by atheistic regimes than by Islam Christian and other monotheistic regimes put together brutal and all as some of them were. Certainly far more then by Christianity.
your're in 'good' company ISAW!!!:mad::(0 -
...and you then promply confirmed that you wouldn't employ a Creationist if s/he was the last scientist on the Planet ... on the spurious self-serving idea that Creation Scientists aren't 'real' scientists!!!:(
The first part of that sentence is just a lie (yet again). I have nowhere even suggested anything like that. Link or retract and apologise please.
As for the second part, 'creation science' is indeed an oxymoron. It is not discriminatory to hold that view, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. However, I have never advocated discriminating against anyone for merely holding creationist views. Creationists can of course be scientists, but 'creationist science' is an oxymoron.0 -
Advertisement
-
...funny thing then that nearly all of the predominantly Roman Catholic Countries in Europe supported the Nazis ... to say nothing about Hitler's own 'Catholocism'!!!Yes indeed VERY wealthy, cutting edge technology and the Catholics far and away didn't vote for Hitler but the fundamentalist Protestants and others did!
Also it was the predominantly Protestant countries of Europe and the rest of the World that put a stop to Hitler's gallop!!!
... I wouldn't 'go there' if I were you!!!!:(:eek:
...let's just say that the Saved Christians within all of the churches (including some Roman Catholics) were appalled at what happened ... and many of the 'Sunday Christians' joined in with the Nazis!!!
...well it certainly wasn't a monarchy!!!The legal system want not a Republic however in the sense of a democracy REGULATED BY LAW. Otherwise the Nurnberg Laws would not have come to pass.
It just goes to show what CAN happen when people lose respect for the humanity and the rights of others!!!:(
I seem to recall that The Roman Catholic Church once did a great line in 'fire and brimstone' sermons.Yet apparently you believe those not accepting your way (the way of the verbatum Bible) will burn in Hell? How is that so different to the Nazi idea that Jews should burn anyway?
I don't know WHO will burn in Hell ... that is entirely between each person and Jesus Christ!!!
...the Jewish caricatures and the jokes WAS how it STARTED in Germany ... it then moved onto job discrimination ... and finally ended in the Gas Chambers!!!Nonsense! You just can NOT compare someone saying a fundamentalist Christian, Jew, Atheist Muslim or whatever as completely batty and irrational with some NAZI who says "my way is right and because we are the chosen people we can wipe out other lesser people"
...whatever happened to free speech ... and academic freedom?:(You have every right to preach whatever batty idea you have. You have no right to public funds or to an audience for such batty ideas. Nor can you claim any University endorses those ideas unless you set it up and pay for it from your own pocket. even then other academics will broadly reject the claims made by it.
.0 -
...what sinister thoughts are you harbouring about MY children?:(equivariant wrote: »"Creationist children" - now there is a sinister thought.0 -
...there are nearly 300 of ye ... and if you didn't say it, then several of your 'friends' said it!!!Originally Posted by J C
...and you then promply confirmed that you wouldn't employ a Creationist if s/he was the last scientist on the Planet ... on the spurious self-serving idea that Creation Scientists aren't 'real' scientists!!!
equivariant
The first part of that sentence is just a lie (yet again). I have nowhere even suggested anything like that. Link or retract and apologise please.
...and you certainly didn't unreservedly condemn them for it!!!
...I do remember some tactical manoeuvering by a number of Atheists ... getting in vague remarks about the fact that they didn't endorse job diiscrimination on the basis of religion ... but that job discrimination was OK once the religion was science ... or was it the other way around ... anyway it had 'self-serving' written all over it!!!:eek::(
...more of the same 'mealy mouthed' words ...equivariant
As for the second part, 'creation science' is indeed an oxymoron. It is not discriminatory to hold that view, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. However, I have never advocated discriminating against anyone for merely holding creationist views. Creationists can of course be scientists, but 'creationist science' is an oxymoron.
"I wouldn't discriminate against you because you are a Jew ... but I won't employ you either, because you won't eat the cocktail sauages that my wife cooks" ... kind of see-through rubbish!!!:(:(0 -
...there are nearly 300 of ye ... and if you didn't say it then several of your 'friends' said it!!!
...and you certainly didn't unreservedly condemn them for it!!!
That's right. No need for accuracy - any old lie will do. "If you didn't say it, several of your friends did" - pathetic.
As for the rest of your post. I have been quite clear in my posting. Specifically, it is the lie of passing creationism off as science that I reject. People can believe what they want about the origin of the universe/life - I have no problem with that at all. However, it is the oxymoronic "creation science" that is truly despicable, because it attempts to subvert science (which I believe to be one of mankinds greatest endeavours) with lies and deception. You and your 'friends' are shameless in your deceit. Over and over again on this thread, you have misrepresented science, tried to mislead people with your "creation science" nonsense, ignored evidence that doesn't suit your agenda, and pretended to have expertise in areas that you evidently do not. And then to cap it all you have the nerve to lecture people about discrimination and morals.
Words cannot express the contempt I have for that. I apologise to nobody for stating that particular truth.0 -
...I have spoken the TRUTH ... and because you didn't unreservedly condemn the advocacy of discrimination ... you bear full moral guilt by association for the remarks!!!equivariant wrote: »That's right. No need for accuracy - any old lie will do. "If you didn't say it, several of your friends did" - pathetic.
... and the Nazis claimed that the Jews were subverting everything from the state to the money supply and even 'misleading' the Nazis OWN wives!!!:(As for the rest of your post. I have been quite clear in my posting. Specifically, it is the lie of passing creationism off as science that I reject. People can believe what they want about the origin of the universe/life - I have no problem with that at all. However, it is the oxymoronic "creation science" that is truly despicable, because it attempts to subvert science (which I believe to be one of mankinds greatest endeavours) with lies and deception. You and your 'friends' are shameless in your deceipt. Over and over again on this thread, you have misrepresented science, tried to mislead people with your "creation science" nonsense, ignored evidence that doesn't suit your agenda, and pretended to have expertise in areas that you evidently do not. And then to cap it all you have the nerve to lecture people about discrimination and morals.
Words cannot express the contempt I have for that. I apologise to nobody for stating that particular truth.0 -
....what you say is true about the balance of contributions on the thread.Did it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, the reason why it's you (with the odd bit of support from Wolfsbane and the occasional passer by) on one side and everyone else, Christian and atheist alike, on the other is that it is you who are wrong and not them?
It is always possible that I am wrong.
...but if I'm not wrong ... WHAT does it say about the current state of Christianity?
...that it is now down "the odd bit of support from Wolfsbane and the occasional passer by"
...the fact that it is PREDOMINANTLY the Atheists who are challenging me would indicate that I am RIGHT.
...if I was wrong they wouldn't bother with me ... and they would dispose of my arguments in 5 seconds flat ... just like I dispose of each of their arguments!!!0 -
I don't believe that 'God', whatever 'God' is, created the world, or whatever. And transubstantiation is basically magic. Think about it, people.
Some priests raped little children, just like people who aren't priests have committed rapes and sexual assaults. The word holy doesn't apply. The grip that the Catholic Church has had over people, especially in Ireland, needs to be forgotten. Times have changed.0 -
...and you then promply confirmed that you wouldn't employ a Creationist if s/he was the last scientist on the Planet ... on the spurious self-serving idea that Creation Scientists aren't 'real' scientists!!!:(
No I did not...there are nearly 300 of ye ... and if you didn't say it, then several of your 'friends' said it!!!
Which you now admit...I have spoken the TRUTH ... and because you didn't unreservedly condemn the advocacy of discrimination ... you bear full moral guilt by association for the remarks!!!
See previous quotes. You have not spoken the truth. You have LIED about the truth again (and got away with it apparently).Pathetic0 -
It is always possible that I am wrong.
...but if I'm not wrong ... WHAT does it say about the current state of Christianity?
That not all Christians spend so much time mulling over evolution versus YEC?
That not all Christians give as much thought to this topic as you do?
Do you think Christianity is in a state because they don't give this topic the same creedance you do?...and the Christians on this thread 'sit on their' hands ... and only come out occasionally to join the Atheists in having a 'pot shot' at me!!!
... you should all be ashamed of yourselves!!!
Tell me JC, what do you think you have achieved in this thread? Also, has it crossed your mind that maybe many of the Christians here don't really care about the arguement you are having?
I personally see this Thread as a circus, and would not dream of wasting my time arguing on it. Have you a problem with Christians making such a choice? I'm certainly not ashamed, thats for sure. In fact, IMO, I have taken the wise choice in staying out of here.0 -
...the fact that it is PREDOMINANTLY the Atheists who are challenging me would indicate that I am RIGHT.
...if I was wrong they wouldn't bother with me ... and they would dispose of my arguments in 5 seconds flat ... just like I dispose of each of their arguments!!!
So, because it is only YECs that oppose Science, Science is right?0 -
Advertisement
-
...if that's ALL that 'evolution' is, we have no problem ...
Well then I can only assume you didn't read it. Because I'm pretty sure you have shown you don't agree with some of it at least.Although the changes produced in a single generation are normally small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population, causing the emergence of new species.
Not 'kinds', emergence of new species.Similarities among species suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor through this process of gradual divergence.
You have no problem with a common ancestor for all life ? (Please for the love of <insert favourite superhero/deity> listen, this does not mean abiogenesis (the beginning of life) it simply means that once life began, it diverged into all known species.)it's just the shuffling about of pre-existing CSI that was Created and Intelligently Designed by God to 'evolve'!!!:):D
If you want to believe that a deity created one form of life and that life evolved over time into all the species we have now then thats compatible with evolution....and I also noticed there wasn't a word about the Billions of years that Evolutionists confuse themselves with!!
Are you editing wiki articles about evolution ? :rolleyes:
The fossil record and other biological factors point towards a time scale of Billions of years....this Wiki article must have been written by a Creation Scientist ... they ARE everywhere!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution0 -
Nearly 300 Atheists are telling you (if you are willing to listen) that the 'origins issue' is indeed very important!!!!That not all Christians spend so much time mulling over evolution versus YEC?
That not all Christians give as much thought to this topic as you do?
Do you think Christianity is in a state because they don't give this topic the same creedance you do?
It is a measure of the state that Christianity is in ... that Christians don't give as much thought to the 'origins' issue on this thread as the Atheists do ... and I believe that this is reflected in the Real World as well.
You only have to look at the leading Atheists who strutt the world stage ... and make largely uncontested remarks about religion in general and Christianity in particular.
Most Christian leaders don't contest these often very negative claims ... and many seem to actually be going along with them ... and certainly, if they are not, they are remarkably silent about it all ... preferring, instead to reserve much of their criticism, when they do speak, for Creationists and 'fundamentalists' instead.
Like I have said, it is like the Israelites 'turning' on David for killing Goliath...when they were too lazy or too afraid to do it themselves!!
... the Atheists take the 'origins issue' deadly seriously ... and it is no co-incidence that as the Churches have emptied out over the last 150 years ... the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled has moved into the ascendent ... while most of these same Churches have looked the other way and/or actively participated in it's PROMOTION!!!:eek:Tell me JC, what do you think you have achieved in this thread? Also, has it crossed your mind that maybe many of the Christians here don't really care about the arguement you are having?
I personally see this Thread as a circus, and would not dream of wasting my time arguing on it. Have you a problem with Christians making such a choice? I'm certainly not ashamed, thats for sure. In fact, IMO, I have taken the wise choice in staying out of here.
...its a 'long game' ... and so far, unlike on this thread, the Atheists are winning 'hands down' in the Real World!!!!
...the final act in the drama now appears to be the exodus of church influence in schools ... and they are meeting the Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' on the way in with the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled' in their briefcases, ready to roll it out to every four-year old ... just as the churches are on the way out (both metaphorically and actually) through the doors of these same schools.
The fact that you don't really care must be of great consolation to the Atheists as they prepare to indoctrinate your children.
Indeed, they appear to have ALREADY done a good job in indoctinating YOU!!
Full marks to the Atheists on this one!!!!
... and BTW the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled'isn't of much importance or validity scientifically (and Atheists will admit as much PRIVATELY) ... they are even more open about the fact that they haven't a clue either about how life could originate in the first place WITHOUT God ... but they 'gloss over' this particular intellectual embarassment by 'handwaving' and saying that they are 'working on it' ... so as to give the impression that they have completely proven that 'Pondkind has evolved into Mankind' when they have done nothing of the sort!!!
The importance of the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled' lies in the fact that it gives the impression that life could 'evolve' from 'Pondkind to Mankind' WITHOUT God ... nothing more and nothing less.
...and any church clasping this particular 'Asp' to its metaphorical bosom can only expect ONE result ... its rapid decline as a fully functioning Christian Witness ... as this thread has proven by the complete inability of anybody (except myself and Wolfsbane and a few occasional visitors) to effectively deal with the 'onslought' from the Atheists!!!
...and here is one of the 'fruits' of the past 150 years of the 'long game' that Evolutionists are playing:-_LilyRose_ wrote: »I don't believe that 'God', whatever 'God' is, created the world, or whatever. And transubstantiation is basically magic. Think about it, people.
Some priests raped little children, just like people who aren't priests have committed rapes and sexual assaults. The word holy doesn't apply. The grip that the Catholic Church has had over people, especially in Ireland, needs to be forgotten. Times have changed.0 -
... and BTW the 'Theory Makes Atheist Fell Intellectually Satisfied'[ /B]isn't of much importance or validity scientifically (and Atheists will admit as much PRIVATELY) ... they are even more open about the fact that they haven't a clue either about how life could originate in the first place WITHOUT God ... but they 'gloss over' this particular intellectual embarassment by handwaving and saying that they are 'working on it' ... so as to give the impression that they have completely proven that 'Pondkind has evolved into Mankind' when they have done no such thing either!!!
The importance of the 'Theory Makes Atheist Fell Intellectually Satisfied'[ /B]lies in the fact that it gives the impression that life could 'evolve' from 'Pondkind to Mankind' WITHOUT God ... nothing more and nothing less.
And once again, for the cheap seats in the back, the JC mix up of evolution and abiogenesis. Hurrah! How many more times will we read it?
JC, you're not right and the MORE you continue to dodge offered papers to read and direct questions on your beliefs and why you hold them, the easier it is for people to see your ignorance and see through your pretense at scientific knowledge. Your dodgeball routine makes even the most level headed person question the reason for your attempts to falsify or ridicule evidence. Your dishonesty on the subject is telling.
But you are right about one thing, this athesist is satisfied and curiously it is your dishonesty that has helped me feel so and this thread that has allowed me to learn more about science than I knew before, because unlike you I was willing to read and learn and consider evidence.
You are the naked emperor and visible to everyone.0 -
...and the more you engage in 'bluff and bluster' ... the more anybody who has an open mind is able to see-through the evidentially challenged and logically bankrupt idea that the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Fulfilled'truly is!!!:)fatmammycat wrote: »... and BTW the 'Theory Makes Atheist Fell Intellectually Satisfied'[ /B]isn't of much importance or validity scientifically (and Atheists will admit as much PRIVATELY) ... they are even more open about the fact that they haven't a clue either about how life could originate in the first place WITHOUT God ... but they 'gloss over' this particular intellectual embarassment by handwaving and saying that they are 'working on it' ... so as to give the impression that they have completely proven that 'Pondkind has evolved into Mankind' when they have done no such thing either!!!
The importance of the 'Theory Makes Atheist Fell Intellectually Satisfied'[ /B]lies in the fact that it gives the impression that life could 'evolve' from 'Pondkind to Mankind' WITHOUT God ... nothing more and nothing less.
And once again, for the cheap seats in the back, the JC mix up of evolution and abiogenesis. Hurrah! How many more times will we read it?
JC, you're not right and the MORE you continue to dodge offered papers to read and direct questions on your beliefs and why you hold them, the easier it is for people to see your ignorance and see through your pretense at scientific knowledge. Your dodgeball routine makes even the most level headed person question the reason for your attempts to falsify or ridicule evidence. Your dishonesty on the subject is telling.
But you are right about one thing, this athesist is satisfied and curiously it is your dishonesty that has helped me feel so and this thread that has allowed me to learn more about science than I knew before, because unlike you I was willing to read and learn and consider evidence.
You are the naked emperor and visible to everyone.0 -
...and the more you engage in 'bluff and bluster' ... the more anybody who has an open mind is able to see-through the evidentially challenged and logically bankrupt idea that the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Satisfied' truly is!!!:)
Hey JC howabout answering my posts ? You have ignored so many arguments at this stage its laughable.0 -
-
Nearly 300 Atheists are telling you (if you are willing to listen) that the 'origins issue' is indeed very important!!!!
So what. Many of them also say that if God existed, they would not worship him as he is a tyrant etc etc. You think you arguing with them about something so tied up in sophistry and speculation is going to make them see the light?It is a measure of the state that Christianity is in ... that Christians don't give as much thought to the 'origins' issue on this thread as the Atheists do ... and I believe that this is reflected in the Real World as well.
A Christian believes we are created by God. So that pretty much covers the origins issue. So what, if someone goes on about evolution, that still doesn't cover the origins issue. It attempts to deal with speciation. Some people simply accept what the science world feeds them, some people go 'meh', and some look deep into the theories. Is it that you believe that you are going to show the atheists that evolution is wrong? And in turn, turn them towards Christ once you blow the theory out of the water?You only have to look at the leading Atheists who strutt the world stage ... and make largely uncontested remarks about religion in general and Christianity in particular.
For every Richard Dawkins, there is a thousand Christians actually making a difference in helping those in need, and taking the good news to people. Debates and Uni-tours are the fora of the establishment of the 'intellectuals' etc. Its their playground.Most Christian leaders don't contest these often very negative claims
... and many seem to actually be going along with them ... and certainly, if they are not, they are remarkably silent about it all ... preferring, instead to reserve much of their criticism, when they do speak, for Creationists and 'fundamentalists' instead.
Theres only one true Christian leader, and thats the man himself. The others are simply Usurpers. 'Christian' leaders are reaping what their predecessors have sowed. Religion itself, and not evolution etc, is IMO the biggest stumbling block.... the Atheists take the 'origins issue' deadly seriously ... and it is no co-incidence that as the Churches have emptied out over the last 150 years ... the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Satisfied' has moved into the ascendent ... while most of these same Churches have looked the other way and/or actively participated in it's PROMOTION!!!:eek:
You may be right, but why should your average Christian, get bogged down in a topic like this? I see sillyness in the atheist and the creationist side of things tbh. Just because you are opposing the evolution idea, does not mean your own idea is correct. You may feel you are fighting the good fight, but at the end of the day, it is the good news of the kingdom that is important. Your fight here seems to have galvanised the atheists. It has allowed them to focus on the topic they love, and slap each others backs etc. I don't see how you think your method of communicating to them is going to bring them the good news?...its a 'long game' ... and so far, unlike on this thread, the Atheists are winning 'hands down' in the Real World!!!!
Winning? The world is lost JC. It has been since the fall. If it wasn't, then it would not be destroyed, and God would not be making things new. Its going to get much worse before it gets better....the final act in the drama now appears to be the exodus of church influence in schools
Well unfortunately, certain churches abused their power in this state anyway. They have no-one to blame but themselves that people are standing against them tbh.... and they are meeting the Atheists and their 'fellow travellers' on the way in with the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Satisfied' in their briefcases, ready to roll it out to every four-year old ... just as the churches are on the way out (both metaphorically and actually) through the doors of these same schools.
I get the distinct impression that the theory of evolution is going to kidnap Christian children and make them atheist? I personally think you underestimate the role of a parent in a childs life.The fact that you don't really care must be of great consolation to the Atheists as they prepare to indoctrinate your children.
In my 13 years of schooling, we spent about 2 weeks on the theory of evolution. I think you may be overstating the issue.Indeed, they appear to have ALREADY done a good job in indoctinating YOU!!
Indoctrinating me with what?... and BTW the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Satisfied'isn't of much importance or validity scientifically
I don't feel the need for white coats to validate things for me to make my mind up on things anyway.they are even more open about the fact that they haven't a clue either about how life could originate in the first place
I know this.but they 'gloss over' this particular intellectual embarassment by 'handwaving' and saying that they are 'working on it'
Again, I know that, though i would not put it in such contentious terms.The importance of the 'Theory That Makes Atheists Feel Intellectually Satisfied' lies in the fact that it gives the impression that life could 'evolve' from 'Pondkind to Mankind' WITHOUT God ... nothing more and nothing less.
...and any church clasping this particular 'Asp' to its metaphorical bosom can only expect ONE result ... its rapid decline as a fully functioning Christian Witness ... as this thread has proven by the complete inability of anybody (except myself and Wolfsbane and a few occasional visitors) to effectively deal with the 'onslought' from the Atheists!!!
IMO, there would be no onslought if you did not humour the atheists. I don't see it as an onslought anyway, but there you go....and here is one of the 'fruits' of the past 150 years of the 'long game' that Evolutionists are playing:-
Again, I think you give this theory much too much creedence. I doubt if that poster even knows how to spell evolution.0 -
.
Isn't that just plain auld ignorance. At least JC has taken the time to consider something about his origins, you on the other hand, don't seem to care and give the impression that you'd accept David Icke's story.That not all Christians spend so much time mulling over evolution versus YEC?
That not all Christians give as much thought to this topic as you do?
Do you think Christianity is in a state because they don't give this topic the same creedance you do?
Then why post? I don't like Lost but I don't go over in their threads and tell them that it's all a circus. Personally, I've learned alot about evolution on this thread. Surely you must have learnt something about it?I personally see this Thread as a circus,
I post on this thread like I do many other ones (e.g Climate Change) because I don't like people attacking science for what I perceive to the be wrong and irrational reasons. Just like I didn't like the way people opposed or supported Lisbon for the irrational reasons. It may not have crossed you mind, the reason we post here isn't just to debate JC, it's to communicate with those that may be on the fence or swayed by deceitful creationist tactics (though we will keep trying to communicate JC). We post here to ensure that no one else falls for his ridiculous clap trap and as a consequence of that we learn alot from each other along the way.
The two most productive things I got from this thread were Fanny Craddocks link of lectures to the interpretation of Genesis (Got me hooked on reading more on exegesis) and either Atomic Horror, Sam Vimes, monosharp or Dr Emma's posts refuting ID and explaining evolution in a succinct and user friendly manner.0 -
Then why post?
To address JC's complaint that he is alone in here and he feels that Christians are neglectful of the topic. I have let him know the reasons that this particular Christian is not joining the circus. I thought that would be quite obvious in my posts, but there you go. What you get out of it is your business.0 -
Advertisement
-
....what you say is true about the balance of contributions on the thread.
It is always possible that I am wrong.
Finally some headway.
J C wrote:...but if I'm not wrong ... WHAT does it say about the current state of Christianity?
An interesting question. Let's say, hypothetically, that you are right. Should it really make much difference? Surely Christians will be saved so long as they live according to the teachings of Christ, regardless of how old they think the planet is.J C wrote:...the fact that it is PREDOMINANTLY the Atheists who are challenging me would indicate that I am RIGHT.
...if I was wrong they wouldn't bother with me ...
Actually, we argue with you knowing full well that you are wrong. We do so to ensure that passers by/readers do not get taken in by your nonsense. We do this by showing that what you say is not correct and amassing evidence to prove it.J C wrote:and they would dispose of my arguments in 5 seconds flat ...
While 5 seconds would be a bit of an exaggeration, your arguments do usually get squashed fairly quickly.J C wrote:just like I dispose of each of their arguments!!!
Ignoring something doesn't really count as disposing of it. That would be like ignoring the bin when you were supposed to empty it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement