‘If We Don’t Take a Stand Now’ against Hostility, the Church Could Become ‘Voiceless,’ Pastor Warns

[Larniavc]

not a single one has been transitional fossil showing the transition between the species.

Every single one is a transition. How do you as some one born in 1988 not know that? Your claims are getting more and more contradictory.

 

[Larniavc]

The scientific method if fundamentally flawed because it uses the "circular reasoning" method of deception. Where the victim is forced to swallow the bait (theory) to begin with and then they can apply endless lies to it and it's not open to questions and it not accountable for any of the lies.

Did you encounter science before or after you knew everything?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do i have your permission to pray for you?.

If I say "no" will you not? (Either way, if you could at least not talk to me about it, that would be great.) It's not that I think your prayers would have any real effect, but I find it rather off-puting for strangers to talk about me like that.

I get the sense that someone has turned you away from God, using lies and deception. God is not angry at people who have been deceived, He's angry at those who know the truth but they hide it from others and tell them lies.

Oh, good grief. I just didn't find the stories believable any more, so I stopped believing. The longer I stay away from it, the less plausible it seems.

I just hope you leave the door open to learn new things. God reveals the truth to those who humbly ask Him, no matter what their world view is.

I learn lots of new things. God is an old thing. It bores me.

 

[Ophiolite]

But I know everything that is relevant and necessary to know, so I won't fall victim to the lies of the enemy.

Well, I suppose I could make a similar claim, that my position is based upon all the relevant data and that I am aware of all I need to know. But that would be infantile nonsense.

The most important thing I am aware of is my own ignorance. I recognise many of the limitations to my knowledge and understand that there are "unknown unknowns" I am unaware of. This is a very comfortable position to be in, for it stops me from false confidence and the adoption of flawed beliefs.

It also warns me to treat with considerable caution the views of anyone who claims to "know everything that is relevant and necessary to know". The trappings of arrogance have never seemed persuasive to me.

 

[loveofourlord]

I will believe it as soon as you guys find a single shred of evidence to support your fantastic faith theory. Of the millions of fossils found over thousands of years, not a single one has been transitional fossil showing the transition between the species.

I'm sorry to offend you with the truth, but I will never abandon the truth to embrace a Satanic lie

your missinformation bordering on lies can't offend anyone. I just pointed to all the feathered dinosaurs, and your response, "Those dinosaurs don't exist." do you hoonestly think anyone will take you seriously when your response is that much of a joke.

 

[loveofourlord]

Every single one is a transition. How do you as some one born in 1988 not know that? Your claims are getting more and more contradictory.

Worse I asked how he explained transitional fossils such as feathered dinosaurs, his response is, they apparently don't exist :> Kinda silly.

 

[Dan1988]

Hmm. Then how strange that any half reasonable scientific education is based almost entirely upon challenging everything, asking difficult questions, probing and prodding at the answers, rejecting most of them as inadequate, flawed, or incomplete. All this the very antithesis of the comic book version of science you portray.
And yet this vast network of alleged lies is supported by many Christians who are active scientists. It is supported by intelligent, committed, critical thinkers who engage in these lies and cast off any hint of accountability for them because . . . ? Yes, what is their motivation? I guess they just feel moved to do the devil's work. Pfft!

But you can't question anything. By question I mean, question the validity of the scientific method used to arrive at a hypothesis or theory which you're being asked to accept. Sure you can ask any questions after you've already accepted the methods as used.

There are too many problems with the scientific method to list here, for example carbon dating is only accurate to determine the age of fossils to 6,000 years but pseudo scientists push it as a reliable method to date items in the millions of years.

Orthodox science concerns itself with proven facts and experiments which are repeatable and 100% reliable every time. When you get into pseudo science, anything goes and it becomes impossible to navigate through the minefield of various theories to confirm anything as factual.

 

[Dan1988]

your missinformation bordering on lies can't offend anyone. I just pointed to all the feathered dinosaurs, and your response, "Those dinosaurs don't exist." do you hoonestly think anyone will take you seriously when your response is that much of a joke.

I have no problem with feathered dinosaurs, I'm sure there were many kinds but none were transitioning between the species. Feathered creatures still belong to bird species. They never became flying pigs.

The deal braker for evolutionists, is we haven't found a single transitional fossil to support the theory that one species of animal, say a fish becoming a mammal. Those missing links don't exist because the theory is false to begin with.

 

[Dan1988]

Pardon the pun, but that there is some god complex-level narcissism right there.

No complex here, I'm just speaking the truth as I live it. I appreciate the truth is stranger than fiction, so I wouldn't expect non Christians to understand as God has hidden it from them.

God said, they will seek Me diligently but they will never find Me. He only reveals Himself to His chosen or elect if you like

 

[Ophiolite]

But you can't question anything. By question I mean, question the validity of the scientific method used to arrive at a hypothesis or theory which you're being asked to accept. Sure you can ask any questions after you've already accepted the methods as used

Of course one can question the scientific method. That you do not think this is possible, or that it occurs demonstrates that you do not know the relevant facts regarding the method. In being trained in scientific methdology one is not just encouraged to question the approach, one is required to do so.
And the remarkable thing is that the method works. You are reading this right now because the method works.

There are too many problems with the scientific method to list here, for example carbon dating is only accurate to determine the age of fossils to 6,000 years but pseudo scientists push it as a reliable method to date items in the millions of years.

Carbon dating can work effectively out towards a maximum of around 50,000 years. No scientist. Please re-read that, No scientist would ever push it as a reliable method for items likely to be millions of years old. Pseudo scientists? Of course, charlatans, fools, con-artists, any and all of them might make such claims, but those have nothing to do with science. There are a multiplicity of well established dating methods for dealing with older rocks. Again, your ignorance of relevant information is a sad comment on the extent and infallability of your knowledge.

Orthodox science concerns itself with proven facts and experiments which are repeatable and 100% reliable every time. When you get into pseudo science, anything goes and it becomes impossible to navigate through the minefield of various theories to confirm anything as factual.

I have no idea why you are bringing up this red-herring of pseudo science. It's almost as if you have two categories of science. Orthodox science equals things that agree with your beliefs. Pseudo science equals things that disagree with your beliefs. It doesn't work light that.
And again, science arrives at the best available explanation based upon current information. All explanations are subject to change. Deal with it.

 

[Dan1988]

So exactly HOW OLD WERE YOU when you stopped learning new things?

The question should be, 'how old was I when I learned that there's nothing new under the sun'. Answer 12 years old, that's when I learned that fact at Sunday school and I never forgot it as it's rains true forever as everything else that God said does.

Lies are short lived but the truth is eternal. I don't want to know about witchcraft or pseudo science or psychology or mans wisdom as all these are useless and evil

 

[Larniavc]

There are too many problems with the scientific method to list here, for example carbon dating is only accurate to determine the age of fossils to 6,000 years but pseudo scientists push it as a reliable method to date items in the millions of years.

Nobody does that apart from creationists. Unless you can cite an example one must conclude that you are again sorely in error.

 

[Larniavc]

Orthodox science concerns itself with proven facts and experiments which are repeatable and 100% reliable every time.

Again. This is symply untrue. Again.

 

[Larniavc]

say a fish becoming a mammal.

Again this is not stated by ToE. Your posts are uniformly incorrect. The procession from marine vertebrates to land tetrapods is only a Google search away.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Dan1988]

If I say "no" will you not? (Either way, if you could at least not talk to me about it, that would be great.) It's not that I think your prayers would have any real effect, but I find it rather off-puting for strangers to talk about me like that.

Oh, good grief. I just didn't find the stories believable any more, so I stopped believing. The longer I stay away from it, the less plausible it seems.

I learn lots of new things. God is an old thing. It bores me.

I thank you for sharing your experience with us and I wish you all the best. It's obvious we're not going to agree on many things but that's the way the world is. The world is full of people with different views and beliefs, as long as we don't go to war against those who don't agree with us.

It may seem as though I'm pushing me faith on others, but that's not my intention. All I'm trying to do is share my experience 'as in what happened to me' with others who may be encouraged by it.

 

[Dan1988]

Again this is not stated by ToE. Your posts are uniformly incorrect. The procession from marine vertebrates to land tetrapods is only a Google search away.

Tiktaalik - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

But the ToE hinges on the existence of transitional fossils which would show the intermediatory spices. I'm not talking about environmental adaptation, which occurs when animals go though some changes to help them cope with their environment. An example may be the feathered dinosaur we mentioned.
Perhaps there was some kind of pole shift and the animal found itself in a cold climate and it grew feathers to help it cope in it's new environment.

What we're looking for is evidence of one species changing into a different one. We haven't found any fossils to support that theory, every single fossil was a fully formed finished animal. We simply don't have any transitional animals to speak of

 

[Larniavc]

12 years old

You must forgive me if I appear not to wish to talk science with someone who identifies as some who stopped learning when they were 12.

Which I don’t.

 

[Larniavc]

Perhaps there was some kind of pole shift and the animal found itself in a cold climate and it grew feathers to help it cope in it's new environment.

So you also have a 12 year olds grasp on climatology? I’ll bow out of this one too.

 

[Dan1988]

Of course one can question the scientific method. That you do not think this is possible, or that it occurs demonstrates that you do not know the relevant facts regarding the method. In being trained in scientific methdology one is not just encouraged to question the approach, one is required to do so.
And the remarkable thing is that the method works. You are reading this right now because the method works.

Carbon dating can work effectively out towards a maximum of around 50,000 years. No scientist. Please re-read that, No scientist would ever push it as a reliable method for items likely to be millions of years old. Pseudo scientists? Of course, charlatans, fools, con-artists, any and all of them might make such claims, but those have nothing to do with science. There are a multiplicity of well established dating methods for dealing with older rocks. Again, your ignorance of relevant information is a sad comment on the extent and infallability of your knowledge.

I have no idea why you are bringing up this red-herring of pseudo science. It's almost as if you have two categories of science. Orthodox science equals things that agree with your beliefs. Pseudo science equals things that disagree with your beliefs. It doesn't work light that.
And again, science arrives at the best available explanation based upon current information. All explanations are subject to change. Deal with it.

Thanks for the thorough explanation, but it's obvious you don't know where I'm coming from. I may not be good at explaining my position well, but you would agree that there is the proper science and then we have the mad scientists. So we have to be careful not to invest ourselves in the what charlatans teach.

I'm all for proper/ true or orthodox or whatever describes genuine science. It wasn't that long ago Doctors used to bleed sick people because some mad scientists convinced them that it was a good idea. Likewise some of the things we accept today, as being true science my turn out to be false in the future.

I have no quarrel with things that are observable and evident, my issue is with those things which haven't been proven to be true beyond all doubt.

 

[Ophiolite]

I have no quarrel with things that are observable and evident, my issue is with those things which haven't been proven to be true beyond all doubt.

And with that our discussion is at an end. Science does not prove anything beyond all doubt. You codemn the scientific method, yet do do not know that essential fact about its outcome: the method does not prove anything beyond all doubt.

Thus there is no point in me continuing to discuss a subject, science, which you pontificate about whilst being profoundly ignorant of. That combination of ignorance and arrogance you thereby display is beyond my ability to endure with equanimity. The next post I address to one of yours will be after I have forgotten we ever interacted.

In the meantime I shall indulge in the atheist equivalent of prayer, hoping that you learn something new in the interim.