My Canoe Challenge

[Lillen]

I see it as witnessing instead. The contrast between witnessing about what Jesus has done for you, and arguing evolution, is so clear i don't have to discribe it.

I don't trust evolution, but one way to argueing it is to use their own words against them and using their arguments as refference point. Many people use this technique, but forget to refer to the author making it look like he supports evolution- I know i have sometimes. There are alot of examples of this... you need to pinch out "according to..."

 

[AV1611VET]

I see it as witnessing instead.

That is a good point --

The contrast between witnessing about what Jesus has done for you, and arguing evolution, is so clear i don't have to discribe it.

That too is a good point --

I don't trust evolution, but one way to argueing it is to use their own words against them and using their arguments as refference point.

But that is where I think we fail.

Science changes so much over time; what used to be called one thing years ago is denied today.

Here are some good examples; when I was in high school:

1. macroevolution was one genus turning into another genus
2. an atheist was a person who said God did not exist
3. morals dealt with your relationship with God; while ethics dealt with your relationship with your fellow man
4. abiogenesis was considered part of evolution

Today, they deny that.

Many people use this technique, but forget to refer to the author making it look like he supports evolution- I know i have sometimes.

You won't see these guys quote Darwin like we quote the Bible.

They will just tell you that it is science, and that is how it is, and expect you to automatically believe it.

If you do not believe it, then you are a candidate for ridicule.

There is very little tolerance for those who disagree, there is very little patience for those who linger, and there is no respect for anything sacred.

When they tell you -- that is the way it is -- and refusing to accept it is considered enough justification to call you whatever their hearts feel like calling you.

 

[Lillen]

Similar, According to Sceince (Poppers theory of falsification) science always needs to speak against the truth (science is the truth according to most of its followers)

 

[AV1611VET]

Similar, According to Sceince (Poppers theory of falsification) science always needs to speak against the truth (science is the truth according to most of its followers)

Yes -- science is their truth, while Jesus is our Truth.

They have their god and we have ours.

 

[Lillen]

We agree... they have their god (Antichrist) and we have ours - Jesus. The reason why I believe that their god is the antichrist is because they all oppose christianity... do they not?

And what more do i believe about antichrist followers is that they know that they will come to hell if they don't repent, they know that they will be punished by our God, they know that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, Yet they chose not to believe in him!

They have made up their minds, all we can do is witnessing that Jesus did die for our sins, did ressurect and moreover loves everyone, and doesn't want to see anyone perishing.

 

[Psudopod]

We agree... they have their god (Antichrist) and we have ours - Jesus. The reason why I believe that their god is the antichrist is because they all oppose christianity... do they not?

No. Many christians are scientists. Even most athiests don't oppose christianity, they just don't believe in it. (They may oppose christanity being taught in schools or laws based solely on christian principles however).

 

[Delphiki]

It's sad that these people are taught nowadays that a particular curriculum, method of learning, or field is actually a other religion, let alone one that opposes theirs. It's a cheap shot and an exploitation of the gullible perpetrated by fundamentalists who are no better than the Taliban.

 

[Cabal]

You won't see these guys quote Darwin like we quote the Bible.

They will just tell you that it is science, and that is how it is, and expect you to automatically believe it.

If you do not believe it, then you are a candidate for ridicule.

There is very little tolerance for those who disagree, there is very little patience for those who linger, and there is no respect for anything sacred.

When they tell you -- that is the way it is -- and refusing to accept it is considered enough justification to call you whatever their hearts feel like calling you.

Yup, I'm sure claiming that we issue Satanic propaganda and are in league with the antiChrist has nothing to do with getting a frosty reception around here, not to mention how manipulative you frequently are with other people's replies in an attempt to manufacture a victory for yourself

 

[Cabal]

Yes -- science is their truth, while Jesus is our Truth.

They have their god and we have ours.

Ah, of course, because not actively worshipping something means you worship it!

If we claimed to worship Christ but didn't actually worship Him, you and your fundie creationist ilk would No-True-Christian us before we could blink

 

[Psudopod]

Here are some good examples; when I was in high school:

1. macroevolution was one genus turning into another genus
2. an atheist was a person who said God did not exist
3. morals dealt with your relationship with God; while ethics dealt with your relationship with your fellow man
4. abiogenesis was considered part of evolution

This sounds more of an issue with your school education than with science.

 

[Lillen]

To defend AVVET. So you are arguing that there are no disagreements among science?

 

[Lillen]

Religion per defintion mean "to associate" or "to relate".

You relate to scinece and we to the bible... or am i wrong?

 

[Delphiki]

To defend AVVET. So you are arguing that there are no disagreements among science?

Not when it comes to solid theory. Hypothesis and speculation, sure.

Unlike in the idea for creationism, no two people seem to have the same model. Dad has his whole "changing states" excuses and AV has his whole "embedded age" excuses, for example. Neither of these which agree with Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, and so on, and none of those agree with any of the others either. And that's just Christian creationism. lol

And yet you all supposedly get your "truth" from the same book.

In science, if there ever is a disagreement with theory, there's usually some kind of evidence to contradict it, which then either replaces or refines the previous theory.

 

[Delphiki]

Religion per defintion mean "to associate" or "to relate".

You relate to scinece and we to the bible... or am i wrong?

That definition is incorrect. If it were the case then baseball teams, NASCAR fans, would be religions. People who'e favorite color is green would be a religion. A religion is:

WordNet Search - 3.0

• S: (n) religion, faith, religious belief (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny) "he lost his faith but not his morality"
• S: (n) religion, faith, organized religion (an institution to express belief in a divine power) "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"

 

[Lillen]

Whatever disagreements there are between the three branches of christendom it is insignificant to the heresies of the Non-Christian cults. we have four important quetions we need to be confronted with:

Who is our saviour?
How are we saved?
What do we base our doctrine on?
Do we rely upon false prophets?

1. Jesus is God, and he is Man.
2. We are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves it is the free gift of God and not a result of works that anyone should boast
3. We always go to the bible for our justification
4. The bible doesn't have any false prophets

And as we go to the bible we see that there are three distinct persons called God. We are also taught that there is only One God. The conclution we need to draw here is that three persons are one God - The trinity!

To use a mathematical formula to explain the trinity we simply pinch out a y on the right side of the equalsign - 3x=1y

 

[Psudopod]

To defend AVVET. So you are arguing that there are no disagreements among science?

Not at all. There's plenty we don't know about and plenty we cannot yet be sure about. But that's not to say there isn't plenty we are sure about.

 

[Lillen]

I am looking at the achronymic defintion of the word religion...

 

[Delphiki]

Whatever disagreements there are between the three branches of christendom it is insignificant to the heresies of the Non-Christian cults. we have four important quetions we need to be confronted with:

Who is our saviour?
How are we saved?
What do we base our doctrine on?
Do we rely upon false prophets?

1. Jesus is God, and he is Man.
2. We are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves it is the free gift of God and not a result of works that anyone should boast
3. We always go to the bible for our justification
4. The bible doesn't have any false prophets

And as we go to the bible we see that there are three distinct persons called God. We are also taught that there is only One God. The conclution we need to draw here is that three persons are one God - The trinity!

To use a mathematical formula to explain the trinity we simply pinch out a y on the right side of the equalsign - 3x=1y

That's fine and dandy for your religion, but it's in no way scientific, nor does this explanation contain anything to support creationism. Once Christians start talking about where the universe came from, they all agree "goddidit", but the similarities stop there. After that, it's all over the place.

 

[Lillen]

Not

So you are infact agreeign with AVVET, that there exist disagrments among scientists?

 

[Delphiki]

Well achronymic isn't really a word. But if you mean acronymic, well, "religion" isn't an acronym.