Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[VirOptimus]

yawn...

I'm sorry that you dont see that. But you are being lied to, study the subject and you will see.

 

[PsychoSarah]

O come on, please...
You're smarter than that.
I can't believe you're oblivious to the problems ToE has.
The emptiness is not in the claim.

I'm not oblivious, but it isn't my job to back claims made by other people. They have to back them, they have to specify what they mean, they have to describe their claims. And contrary to what you might think, I know of no flaws that the ToE has that would be a matter of such contention as to make the theory invalid.

 

[Loudmouth]

yawn...

It is such utter bovine excrement that even you won't defend it. What does that say?

 

[PsychoSarah]

He said it also in "Expelled, intelligence not allowed".
And you deny he meant what he said, just as i expected...

First of all, that movie is edited in a biased way, and most of the evolution supporters in it were lied to about the focus of the movie. Secondly, Dawkins is not atheist Jesus, and I hate the man, personally, for his lack of tact and ease of quote mining. Lastly, if Dawkins actually thought DNA was designed, he probably wouldn't identify as agnostic. No theist has anything to gain by pretending to not have faith. Ben Stein asks him a lot of leading questions. An example is how forcibly he insists that Dawkins describe how he would think the universe could be designed, which Dawkins obviously doesn't want to answer because he doesn't think the universe is designed. To give you a comparison of how that can feel, how would you like it if you were being badgered by a racist person to describe how you would interpret one race as being inferior to another (I assume that you aren't racist). Obviously, answering the question would make you very uncomfortable, and pretty much guarantees that you will look bad, and yet this person is dead set on you answering the question.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

yawn...

Are you going to correct your mistake you made with your quote mine? Seems you have decided to hide from it. Perhaps you just forgot.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you going to correct your mistake you made with your quote mine? Seems you have decided to hide from it. Perhaps you just forgot.

-_- he hasn't been online yet since people started posting about that, I don't think.

 

[BobRyan]

Are you going to correct your mistake you made with your quote mine? Seems you have decided to hide from it. Perhaps you just forgot.

"If it does not flatter faith in evolutionism -- it is a ' quote mine' " -- this then is the "faith" of some.

 

[BobRyan]

First of all, that movie is edited in a biased way,

So then you have a video of the "editing" too?? Amazing!

Secondly, Dawkins is not atheist Jesus, and I hate the man, personally, for his lack of tact and ease of quote mining.

Did Dawkins lie on camera when he said that blind-faith evolutionism killed his Christianity? Did Darwin also lie about that as well?

Lastly, if Dawkins actually thought DNA was designed, he probably wouldn't identify as agnostic.

Dawkins himself states that his view of agnostic is "Atheism" written politely -

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a personal god qualifies as a delusion,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

No theist has anything to gain by pretending to not have faith. Ben Stein asks him a lot of leading questions. An example is how forcibly he insists that Dawkins describe how he would think the universe could be designed, which Dawkins obviously doesn't

Here is what Dawkins thinks -

"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Of course as a -- polite atheist -- (or something of that sort of atheist according to Dawkins) -- he cannot afford to let God design whatever is observed to be such.

real life is not what many evolutionists imagine to themselves.

Details matter.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So then you have a video of the "editing" too?? Amazing!



Did Dawkins lie on camera when he said that blind-faith evolutionism killed his Christianity? Did Darwin also lie about that as well?



Dawkins himself states that his view of agnostic is "Atheism" written politely -




Here is what Dawkins thinks -

"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Of course as a -- polite atheist -- (or something of that sort of atheist according to Dawkins) -- he cannot afford to let God design whatever is observed to be such.

real life is not what many evolutionists imagine to themselves.

Details matter.

in Christ,

Bob

We have already told you, saying something appears designed is not the same as saying it is, nor does giving the shallow impression of design serve as evidence of it. Even if it did, it wouldn't serve as evidence for the deity you believe in specifically.

 

[BobRyan]

It is such utter bovine excrement that even you won't defend it. What does that say?

believers in evolutionism are seldom this informative and focused on detail.

Must be some self-improvement going on there.

 

[BobRyan]

First of all, that movie is edited in a biased way,

So then you have a video of the "editing" too?? Amazing!

Secondly, Dawkins is not atheist Jesus, and I hate the man, personally, for his lack of tact and ease of quote mining.

Did Dawkins lie on camera when he said that blind-faith evolutionism killed his Christianity? Did Darwin also lie about that as well?

Lastly, if Dawkins actually thought DNA was designed, he probably wouldn't identify as agnostic.

Dawkins himself states that his view of agnostic is "Atheism" written politely -

No theist has anything to gain by pretending to not have faith. Ben Stein asks him a lot of leading questions. An example is how forcibly he insists that Dawkins describe how he would think the universe could be designed, which Dawkins obviously doesn't

Here is what Dawkins thinks -

"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

Of course as a -- polite atheist -- (or something of that sort of atheist according to Dawkins) -- he cannot afford to let God design whatever is observed to be such.

real life is not what many evolutionists imagine to themselves.

Details matter.

We have already told you, saying something appears designed is not the same as saying it is,

"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.


Dawkins illustrates the point that a sufficiently talented “story teller” can spin a story to convince himself to ignore the observations in nature where we can see complicated biological systems that appear to have been designed for a purpose.


Imagine if you will "physics is the study of complicated things that appear to have been created by a rabbit" - now of course the person saying that in all seriousness - does not really think a rabbit exists or did such a thing - they just say that to be 'informative' and open minded.

I think the world of evolutionists must be pretty entertaining

As I already stated - Dawkin's atheism insists that he "believe" in evolutionism and that he NOT "believe" in God (so then the "god delusion' comes to mind)

 

[PsychoSarah]

Must I repeat myself? Saying it looks like a face doesn't mean it is a face. Saying that it looks designed doesn't mean it is designed. And Dawkins is not atheist Jesus, so why do you act as if I or anyone else is obligated to defend him?

 

[BobRyan]

Each of Bob's quote mines have been extensively discussed and addressed previously so I'd like to ignore them but I have to wonder what the point of them is anyway?

a) I haven't bothered checking them but aren't all the people quoted professional scientists and fully accept evolution?
b) Why is Bob prepared to accept one or two sentences they say which support his point,yet reject the other 99.999% of their work which disagrees with his 'opinion'?
c) Does one comment (even if it were shown to be in context) negate actual evidence. Opinions are not facts.

You seem to be arguing that we should ignore your post.

Isn't that self-defeating??

 

[BobRyan]

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

"The help" that this guy is getting -- is the "help" that says he is absolutely right about suspecting that blind-faith evolutionism will destroy his faith in Christ. So say all the atheists and agnostics loading up the thread ... because the only response to that OP from the blind-faith-in-evolutionism contingent is "all praise evolutionism" without a single reference to the OP subject matter.

 

[BobRyan]

Must I repeat myself? Saying it looks like a face doesn't mean it is a face. Saying that it looks designed doesn't mean it is designed.

Tell that to Martin Rees and Leonard Susskind -

They inform us that the blind-faith devotees to arguing against a designer for this universe - are flatly denying "observations in nature" so irrefutable that one must 'imagine' about an infinite number of "other universes" to try and get the design already observed in this one to -- wash out - as random chance.

And these two are atheists -- and sometimes more politely - agnostics.

Nobel prize winning cosmologist Martin Rees -- and the father of string theory Leonard Susskind.... or ... PsychoSarah off the cuff remarks.

I think we could all be "informed" here if we allow ourselves a bit of reading.

 

[BobRyan]

My point is, if evolutionism is true..then there is no reality of Genesis 3.
Secondly, I don't think one can accept the reality of Gen 3 unless God grants it.

Now see - we have someone other than me -- and one or two other non-atheists here - - with posts addressing the issue in the OP.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

"If it does not flatter faith in evolutionism -- it is a ' quote mine' " -- this then is the "faith" of some.

No, Bob. Quoting someone out of context in attempts to make the quote seem like it supports your argument is dishonest. You can try to back flip your way out of it all you like but I call it like I see it. Quote mining is lying.

Here is what Dawkins thinks -

"“biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1.

It's been pointed out countless times in this thread that this is a quote mine. The entire context has been linked to you and others as well as passages that come after it in the same chapter. Continuing to use it makes you intellectually dishonest.

Even if Dawkins were saying what you so desperately want him to be saying, he'd be wrong and evolution would still be true.


Bob, answer me this. Would you like to discuss the evidence for evolution instead of rejecting it out of hand ad nauseum?

 

[Jimmy D]

You seem to be arguing that we should ignore your post.

Isn't that self-defeating??

It seems you missed the point of my post:

a) Aren't all the people you quoted professional scientists and fully accept evolution?
b) Why are you prepared to accept one or two sentences they say which support his point,yet reject the other 99.999% of their work which disagrees with his 'opinion'?
c) Does one comment (even if it were shown to be in context) negate actual evidence? Opinions are not facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

"If it does not flatter faith in evolutionism -- it is a ' quote mine' " -- this then is the "faith" of some.

The Bible says that God doesn't exists.

"There is no God"--Psalm 14:1

 

[TLK Valentine]

The Bible says that God doesn't exists.

"There is no God"--Psalm 14:1

If that's good enough for Bob, it's good enough for the rest of us.