Testing Out My Writing Please Have A Look

[AG_BIC96]

It's name calling, true or not. And like so much you
post, ( as others try to tell you ), false.

CCP had no influence in my education.
Fallacy ( poison the well) and falsehood
combined. One seldom gets it right when they make things up.

If one had been lied to that doesn't make the other right.

You' ve been in violation of forum rules btw, as it's specified that responses are to be to the topic, not attacking the person.

Did I not essentially say please leave in polite way. I'd prefer not to entertain this negativity, I understand life can be difficult but if you are having a hard time there are people to discuss that with as opposed to being angry with random strangers on the internet. And if you need help or an outlet it's wiser to make friends and ask for that as opposed to enemies( I'm serious about this not saying this to be sarcastic).

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, the purpose is merely to bring to the attention of our new colleague that the theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God in the minds of most Christians.

Does it cause them to lose trust in what the Bible teaches?

 

[BCP1928]

Did I not essentially say please leave in polite way. I'd prefer not to entertain this negativity, I understand life can be difficult but if you are having a hard time there are people to discuss that with as opposed to being angry with random strangers on the internet. And if you need help or an outlet it's wiser to make friends and ask for that as opposed to enemies( I'm serious about this not saying this to be sarcastic).

Your continued insinuations (like the snark about the Chinese Communist Party) that those of us who are dissatisfied with your writing are atheists or under the influence of atheism are extremely offensive and unnecessary.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Did I not essentially say please leave in polite way. I'd prefer not to entertain this negativity, I understand life can be difficult but if you are having a hard time there are people to discuss that with as opposed to being angry with random strangers on the internet. And if you need help or an outlet it's wiser to make friends and ask for that as opposed to enemies( I'm serious about this not saying this to be sarcastic).

There’s an ignore button you can use so people like this won’t bother you anymore. I used it a long time ago for this particular person.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You wanted to know what we disagreed with so I responded to the OP.

We are made of many of the same elements derived from soil and water as Genesis 2:7 states " God formed man of the dust of the ground & breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul".

After this opening I expected an essay on cosmology or astronomy, instead I got a paragraph and then attempted biology.

Everything in our physical world has a basis in being created out of star dust.

Most of the matter in the Universe is hydrogen and helium. It is not "star dust". Most of the total mass-energy of the Universe isn't even ordinary matter.

Star Dust in other words debris from Super Nova's that occurred billions of years ago particularly during the beginning of time at approximately 13.7 billion years ago.

I don't know if the Big Bang was the beginning of time or not (no one does), but...

1. Dust forms from many types of stars: supernovae, classical novae, AGB stars, etc., not just supernovae. (One word, not capitalized.)

2. Formation of heavy elements is an ongoing process. It did not happen all at the beginning of time. New and nearby supernovae are discovered every night.

See here how this fact relates to Genesis 2:7 dust to modern day astronomer and physicist view of the origin of the universe, our physical world being derived from star dust.

Gen 2::7 is as story about a man being formed from dust/clay/soil. It is not a story about the origins of dirt. Star dust (or rather all heavy elements) constitute less than 1% of all matter.

We are made and comprised of the same elements that the heavenly bodies is composed of as well as our terrestrial environment.

This is true and it would be odd if it wasn't true.

 

[AG_BIC96]

If it is harsh it is because this is a Christian forum. You are basically making a weak theological argument using pseudoscience which you admit you cannot defend on scientific grounds. Not a good look.

I disagree but thank you for your input, Cheers!

 

[BCP1928]

Does it cause them to lose trust in what the Bible teaches?

No.

 

[AG_BIC96]

You wanted to know what we disagreed with so I responded to the OP.

After this opening I expected an essay on cosmology or astronomy, instead I got a paragraph and then attempted biology.

Most of the matter in the Universe is hydrogen and helium. It is not "star dust". Most of the total mass-energy of the Universe isn't even ordinary matter.

I don't know if the Big Bang was the beginning of time or not (no one does), but...

1. Dust forms from many types of stars: supernovae, classical novae, AGB stars, etc., not just supernovae. (One word, not capitalized.)

2. Formation of heavy elements is an ongoing process. It did not happen all at the beginning of time. New and nearby supernovae are discovered every night.

Gen 2::7 is as story about a man being formed from dust/clay/soil. It is not a story about the origins of dirt. Star dust (or rather all heavy elements) constitute less than 1% of all matter.

This is true and it would be odd if it wasn't true.

Thank you for your input, other people's view points are always welcomed.

 

[BCP1928]

Thank you for your input, other people's view points are always welcomed.

Good. We look forward to your second attempt.

This is a tough forum. Some of our colleagues are actual scientists working in the fields under discussion. some are devoutly religious and serious students of theology and the Bible. All of us have been disputing with creationists for some years and have seen it all before in one form or another. Good luck.

 

[Astrid]

Your continued insinuations (like the snark about the Chinese Communist Party) that those of us who are dissatisfied with your writing are atheists or under the influence of atheism are extremely offensive and unnecessary.

To this we add, stated directly or implied attacks on
character...mean spirited, uncivil, angry, mean, brutal,
unkind, impolite, condescending, just plain mean, silly,
indoctrinated ( with lies), harass, insult assault character,
rude, unhinged, impolite, abusive.

Did I miss some?

 

[Larniavc]

I’m sorry are you replying to me?

 

[BNR32FAN]

No.

Well I don’t think that’s actually an honest answer. There’s a difference between what the Bible actually teaches on this subject and twisting that teaching into something completely different.

 

[Larniavc]

I've rejected the rude and unhinged attacks towards me in this post. I think that's a better way of putting it. The people who were civil we simply disagreed or I said I would have an open mind and look into the information they presented but if they were being impolite or nasty I'm not going to take that abuse towards me, you are more than welcome to though.

I’m sorry, when is telling you where you have gone wrong rude and unhinged?

Such an accusation is in breach of forum rules.

 

[BCP1928]

Well I don’t think that’s actually an honest answer. There’s a difference between what the Bible actually teaches on this subject and twisting that teaching into something completely different.

That you have an opinion about what the Bible "actually teaches" is noted, but it is not normative for all Christians.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Does that help make you secure that you're thinking right?

No, it's a counter point to the petty "he's an atheist" comment that has no bearing on the topic. There are loads of Christians who recognize that what is observed in reality and what is written in their holy book don't mesh well and they have chosen the path of accepting reality instead of dogmatic and often misapplied interpretations of their scriptures. THey are able to reconcile this with their beliefs and have no issue. Christians who don't accept the ToE and other scientific theories think they're special because they believe in what is essentially magic. That's it at its most basic. They are not. They do not possess special knowledge or wisdom because of their beliefs. They have no special insight, wisdom or authority to make the criticisms against science that they think they're entitled to make and have anyone listen to or consider those vapid opinions as were displayed in the OP valid.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I

History is full of what scientists have "actually observed and shown us to be true with their justified interpretations."

And they've been just wrong.

Would you like me to give you some examples?

I didn't think so.

It's too hard to read, isn't it?

I'm aware of your examples and we've had these discussions before. Your complete misunderstanding and negative views about how science works and the benefits it has given all of us in spite of it's failures notwithstanding. My comment stands on its own. Science getting things wrong and correcting itself with new information is a feature, not a bug.

If you want to argue against something then present your own observations and data that show whatever your interpretation is is correct. That's the way that works. You don't get to just hand-wave it away because it invalidates your beliefs.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That you have an opinion about what the Bible "actually teaches" is noted, but it is not normative for all Christians.

Does the Bible teach that Adam was the first man and he was created 6,000 years ago? Does evolution agree with that?

 

[Ophiolite]

I was being genuine when I called him buddy not sarcastic, No I will not accept attacks under the guise of criticism there's a way to be critical without assaulting people's character and plain out attacking them. I've never once done that to someone I assess their work first and foremost and would expect others to do the same. If you're analyzing a first time writers work with this level of intense scrutiny on a Christian Forum then so I be it I guess. Is that not a bit harsh though?

You asked for input on your writing. You did not specify what you wanted evaluated. I took the time to read the entire thread, think carefully about what you had written, and provide a carefully considered assessment of your content. I did this in an effort to be helpful to you. You chose to ignore 90% of my observations and instead tried to justify why you will ignore the criticism, criticism that you invited. Duly noted. I'll refrain from any further attempt to give you the benefit of many years of proof reading technical documents.

 

[BCP1928]

Does the Bible teach that Adam was the first man and he was created 6,000 years ago? Does evolution agree with that?

Some Christians think so; most others do not. In any case, it is not essential Christian doctrine. Your opinion in the matter is not grounds for insinuating that those who disagree with you about it are not "real" Christians. In fact, it is forbidden to do so in this forum.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Does the Bible teach that Adam was the first man

Sure.

and he was created 6,000 years ago?

No, not explicitly. That's an interpretation that was added to what is written. A jot here. A tittle there...

Does evolution agree with that?

The Theory of Evolution does not address it, but I would say on the one hand we have real-world observations, evidence, fossils, DNA and such and on the other we have bronze-age writings of an event that no person could possibly have witnessed. Which do you think is more likely to be true?