- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
For your entertainment I guess. What perpetuates anything once it starts growing... its roots, and they are hidden.
Upvote
0
As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter _____a_____
- Start date
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
I'm not.
Anyone who freely confesses that their starting point is a dogmatic, unquestionable position that has to be taken on faith and which would never be questioned no matter the evidence, then that person has nothing of value to add to an intellectual scientific discussion.
Because to such a person, evidence doesn't matter.
And in science, evidence is ALL that matters.
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
If they are hidden, then how would you know they are there? ;-)
In any case, you still haven't answered the question.
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
You don't seem to be including yourself in that.
Otherwise, you'ld be answering something very different when being asked what kind of evidence would make you change your mind.
You made it quite clear that you would accept no evidence whatsoever if it contradicts your religious beliefs.
That's not exactly consistent with the idea saying "i could be wrong".
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
Science doesn't deal in proof.
When you say that "evolutionists come empty handed" when it comes to proof, you're kind of exposing that you don't understand how science works.
There's a reason why they choose the word "theory" to describe models of explanations. It's because these sciences don't deal in PROOF. It deals in supporting evidence instead.
The first comes with certainty, the latter is provisional / tentative.
Upvote
0
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Perhaps a scientific conference, instead of a Creation/Evolution forum, would be a more suitable experience for you.
Upvote
0
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Oh, come on now. you dictated the terms, and even asked for the difference.
Upvote
0
xianghua
Well-Known Member
ok. but this is just variation of the same kind of creature. the mouse or the crocodile stays as a mouse and a crocodile and didnt evolved into something else. we can find such variation among humans too, but i dont think that we will call it "evolution". another rproblem is some biological systems that cant evolve stepwise. for instance: a blood will by useless without blood vessels and vice versa. so one part depend on other part so it cant evolve stepwise.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
DreamerOfTheHeart
I Am What I Am
- Jul 11, 2017
- 1,162
- 392
- 53
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
On reflection, after posting, and finding evolutionists really were unable to grasp what I posted:
My argument, in summary, is, 'you don't really know what reality is'. I went further and pointed out, I found, in reading all of Dawkins books, even he agreed to this possibility. He agreed it was impossible to refute. He dismissed the possibility by arguing, basically, 'you have to assume reality is as it appears, until you have further evidence'. He did not come up with this argument on his own, and from his works, it is obvious that he never really bothered to think on this.
I was not surprised that no poster who responded to me with hostility was able to get into this problem. Because people assume reality is as it is presented to them, and that if there is anything seriously challenging to current perceptions of reality, they really do not want to think about it.
Instead, what I got was "TLDR" & strawman arguments, where posters thought I was saying something they were well used to dealing with. As soon as I pointed out, they were mistaken, they dropped off.
This is not new to me, this is what I deal with routinely, and for decades.
The reason for this is because people do not tend to challenge their observation of the nature of their reality. It is not unlike 'change blindness', which humans are very susceptible to. As it is observed, easily repeatable, you can find multiple videos of this: humans can be talking to someone, that person can change out with someone else, when they are not looking, and most of the time, they will not notice this. Even if the person changed out is drastically different then the one they were initially talking to.
Put another way: when they saw the arguments I made were not arguments they had come across before, they dropped off. After, as if they had scales over their eyes, they misread my statements, reading into them statements they had, often, come across before. They are very bad at dealing with new ideas. Especially new ideas that challenge their basic perception of reality.
If you have never seriously questioned the nature of reality as you observe it, you can not really consider yourself a conscious person.
Automatons do not question the nature of their reality.
Not ironically, in the least, in "Westworld", this was examined, and well pointed out: one human asked an android, 'Do you ever question the nature of your reality?' This android was programmed by a hacker to question the nature of their reality and wake up out of the dream they were put in. So, they responded back, "Do *you* ever question the nature of *your* reality?'
Then, it was slowly revealed, that the "human" asking the question was actually an android, all along. Something he was unable to perceive.
Far from a new question examined in modern fiction, one which actually is in quite a lot of science fiction. And with good cause. It is a deep question, but it is also a very necessary one.
Another response I received was "TL/DR". Which people intend as an insult, hoping to bother the other person, and impress upon them the importance of their own time. But, they are unaware that this may actually reveal themselves as being:
1. A person not well acquainted with reading.
2. A person who is incapable with handling material they have never come across before.
3. A person who probably gets most of their information spoon fed to them, but may be under the illusion that this spoon feeding is equivalent to independent thinking.
4. A person who sincerely believes they are not spoon fed what they believe, but because they tell themselves otherwise, they genuinely are persuaded by this delusion. So, they project. They project because, really, this is exactly their circumstances. And they perceive everyone who does not believe their own, particular spoonfeeding as an 'enemy'.
5. That if they did start to actually dig into something that challenges their deeply held beliefs, they might lose the dream they are in. So, they can not do this.
This is symptomatic with cults. They read material only from their own cult, they only seek confirmation of their pre-existing biases. If someone does dictate that there is material they are forbidden from reading, they create their own dictates, and follow them.
That is, for instance, in cults, like in totalitarian societies, much 'outside material' is banned. This is from the 'top down', is how people in the "free" world often perceive it. 'Outside material' is illegal, by the government, or other dictatorial leadership. But, the reality is, even if you take away that 'top down' leadership, people will tend to try and do this on their own. And the reality is, even if you blame it all on the leadership, it is usually the people who enforce these rules.
Very ironically, strong believers in the almighty truth of the latest scientific theories tend to have some beliefs about this. A pretension to comprehension. Which they tell themselves, over and over again. But, the reality is, they really only apply this to their enemies.
This is why, in my initial response, I pointed out, I read almost all of Dawkins' books. I read Carl Sagan's books. I did not state this, but I state this now: neither Dawkins, nor Sagan, had read the Bible. Both had dabbled, and their conclusions were childish to retarded.
Both were very smart men. So, why was it that they were unable to treat the small parts of the Bible with such shallowness? Both of them relied on 'worst case examples' from the peripheral of society in order to make their cases. Both of them relied on 'what others of my belief system have previously observed about the Bible'. I did not come away feeling that they had read it at all, on their own.
Instead, they treated it from a distance, only approaching what others from their group told them it said.
The same does happen in cults. They do not actually read the Bible on their own. They are told by their cult leaders what it says.
This does not mean I am bothering to argue to evolutionists that they should read the Bible. Because the Bible is not written for them. I do not think they would have the capacity to believe it. This is why they do not read it. The reason for this, is as Paul pointed out, 'God chose the nothings of this world to shame the strong'.
Still, if they did bother to read it on their own, instead of merely 'hearing what others of my group tell me it says', it would certainly challenge their perceptions of the nature of *their* reality. And, they know this. So, they stay far away from it. They would not seriously consider the concepts presented in it, because this could shatter their entire perception of reality.
They love the world. They love their perception of reality. Without it, they face the loss of 'everything'. Because this is where they live. In a delusion. Because we process reality, internally. Everyone has their own reality. They share their reality with others, and come to consensual, mass delusions. Plato's cave 101.
For us 'nothings of this world', we do not find ourselves at home in the world. The popularly accept consensual delusions of reality are not made for us. They are made for those 'of the world'. We are unhappy in the world, because it is not our world. We long for a better world.
The Good News (or Gospel truth), is that God sets this for both groups: for the nothings of the world, God has made us this. That we might be uncomfortable in the world. That we want something better. And, for the somethings of the world, God has made them comfortable in it. Paul concluded his argument by saying, in the end, when the 'nothings shine', then it will be seen "God made all".
Put another way, the sad fact of human beings is: we all tend to believe what we want to believe, based on our preferences. God sets our preferences, ultimately, by our life conditions. These are not easy to be changed. You can, though, at least, become aware of your biases. And attempt to be self-cynical of your beliefs, after doing so.
"Evolutionists" love to tell themselves that they are very cynical. The posture they put themselves in is one of cynicism. They tell themselves they are open minded. They love to talk about 'the war between science and religion', and regale mythologies (and truths) of the heroes who faced down dogmatism of ruling groups of religious leaders. And, yet, they operate in exactly the same way.
And, the sad reality is, the only reason we do not today live in a theocracy is not because of the 'breaking of mythologies by scientists', but because of work from other Christians who challenged the core of their beliefs. The only reason Galileo was persecuted as he was, for instance, was because he was living in the Reformation. He was just caught up in the fray of that.
Indeed, the only reason that these "new" ideas started to break forth, was because the Reformation was already challenging the core ideas of what was, essentially, a theocracy.
'Evolutionists' think of "Christians", in their retellings of history (which they are unfamiliar with), as the leaders of these theocracies. The reality is, those guys were not real Christians. The real Christians were the reformationists, the Orthodox, and the outliers in the Catholic system.
I am not disparaging Galileo here, either. Far from it. But, being entirely ignorant of the environment he was in, besides making it into a cartoon, because it is easier to understand, does not make these sorts of modern mythos more true. It just creates a modern mythology. That it appears, on the surface, to be so different from previous mythologies, which spoke of gods and angels, is irrelevant. These are surface details.
It is ironic that some have considered 'modern prophets to be science fiction writers'. I am not suggesting that 'science fiction' is evil. But, I can point out, a lot of popular science fiction does delve into 'challenging the nature of one's reality', and other deep matter. But, really the takeaway from 'evolutionists' and their ilk, is not on these deeper problems presented.
Usually.
They do have some capacity to deal with deal with some deep matters. As long as these matters confirm their perception of reality, and do not challenge it.
Their takeaway is this delusion that the future will be very much like the present. The aliens will be very much like they are now. The world will be, on the surface, different, but in all practical cases, pretty exactly as it is now.
Spaceships, instead of houses and businesses. Outerspace, instead of planet earth. Aliens that look, outwardly, different. But, in reality, are just reflections of humans, as they are, now. Or some minor variant thereof. Technology that really is meant to appear to be futuristic, but really is just there to give the illusion that 'this is the far future'.
Basically, 'wherever you go, there you are'.
They want shallow fare. There is challenging science fiction, some of this even makes it relatively mainstream, like "Westworld" I mentioned, or "Blade Runner". I really could make quite a long list here. Thankfully, the world is, by tiny increments, getting better for us 'nothings of this world'. However, their takeaway is the shallow fare, but we should be thankful this is there, because otherwise such things would never be given any sort of budget. Because you have to give people shallow fare, if you want it to be anywhere near mainstream.
As Jesus pointed out, prophets tend to be obscure, but false prophets tend to be popular. We have learned a trick out of this. To mix in some poison into their food. To sneak into jobs we were not allowed to have, in the old ages.
But, the delusion of their takeaway is: human beings and the earth, won't really change. What is most dismal about this, is, the whole problem about mortality is almost never addressed. What does it matter if the future has cooler toys, if lifespans remain roughly the same? And, you won't be there, you will be dead?
Jesus, has a monopoly on immortality.
Some science fiction does have depictions of some sort of immortality. Some has become about, recently. People being able to move their consciousness from one form to another. Be this to clone bodies, other people's bodies, or to some sort of robot or computer system. Offhand, I can only think of "Lexx", otherwise, with a depiction of some form of immortality, and "AI". In all of these cases, this is not real immortality. The possibility of death does, strongly, remain.
(Oh, and, how could I forget "Dr Who". Probably the most sure form of immortality I have ever seen presented in science fiction, though even with his regenerative capability and time machine - which can go anywhere in space, thereby evading the mortality of areas of space its' self - can be destroyed.)
And this is our monopoly. This is our advantage. Immortality. The promise of immortality is central to the message of Jesus. We have been aging normally, and dying, most of us. But, with the Spirit comes a sense of immortality, already. We have, what the apostle spoke of, what they do not have: Hope.
With the Spirit, we have a sense of God's eternal consciousness within ourselves. The "hope" spoken of is not a mere word.
This is another area I come across, talking to atheists, and the like: they can imagine themselves not existing. They seem to genuinely have no problem with not existing at death. It is something they seem to be able to comprehend. This is not comprehending something deep or unusual. It is **who they are**. It is 'what they know'. It is all they know.
You should be very aware of this, talking to them. They talk about the future, but their lives are short. They claim to be concerned about the earth, and about future generations, but their behaviors do not really reflect this. They are playing the short game. They are not house owners, they are renters. They have zero true vested interest in the future.
All of who and what they are is about their life, right now.
Dawkins and Sagan do not care at all about what might be being said on their works. They are dead. Maybe they had life insurance and it paid out to someone. But, they did not have life insurance for their souls.
None of these folks are seriously concerned about the long game. Christians are, because this is not - quite yet - our world. This is their world. Though, that is, as we can all observe, changing.
This does mean all of their work, all of their posturing, is done in a set of life circumstances where 'let us eat & drink, and be merry, for tomorrow, we may die'.
Handfuls look for some way to extend their lives. Some money is put into this. The chance they have to do so, now, is grim, and this is obvious. Much more effort is put towards the cures for diseases. This is good, this is fine. We do work in the business of saving lives (and the world), so we find some commonality with this work.
But, more importantly, these guys might die, anyday. They might live a few more decades. That this problem should be on their priority list does not matter to them. That there is a plausible possibility for immortality offered by Jesus, does not matter.
The very possibility is not something they can entertain. They do not challenge their perception of reality, and they can not seriously dwell on the factor of 'death', in their very many thoughts they have. It is one of the last things they ever want to think about. Because they are living, entirely for today.
My argument, in summary, is, 'you don't really know what reality is'. I went further and pointed out, I found, in reading all of Dawkins books, even he agreed to this possibility. He agreed it was impossible to refute. He dismissed the possibility by arguing, basically, 'you have to assume reality is as it appears, until you have further evidence'. He did not come up with this argument on his own, and from his works, it is obvious that he never really bothered to think on this.
I was not surprised that no poster who responded to me with hostility was able to get into this problem. Because people assume reality is as it is presented to them, and that if there is anything seriously challenging to current perceptions of reality, they really do not want to think about it.
Instead, what I got was "TLDR" & strawman arguments, where posters thought I was saying something they were well used to dealing with. As soon as I pointed out, they were mistaken, they dropped off.
This is not new to me, this is what I deal with routinely, and for decades.
The reason for this is because people do not tend to challenge their observation of the nature of their reality. It is not unlike 'change blindness', which humans are very susceptible to. As it is observed, easily repeatable, you can find multiple videos of this: humans can be talking to someone, that person can change out with someone else, when they are not looking, and most of the time, they will not notice this. Even if the person changed out is drastically different then the one they were initially talking to.
Put another way: when they saw the arguments I made were not arguments they had come across before, they dropped off. After, as if they had scales over their eyes, they misread my statements, reading into them statements they had, often, come across before. They are very bad at dealing with new ideas. Especially new ideas that challenge their basic perception of reality.
If you have never seriously questioned the nature of reality as you observe it, you can not really consider yourself a conscious person.
Automatons do not question the nature of their reality.
Not ironically, in the least, in "Westworld", this was examined, and well pointed out: one human asked an android, 'Do you ever question the nature of your reality?' This android was programmed by a hacker to question the nature of their reality and wake up out of the dream they were put in. So, they responded back, "Do *you* ever question the nature of *your* reality?'
Then, it was slowly revealed, that the "human" asking the question was actually an android, all along. Something he was unable to perceive.
Far from a new question examined in modern fiction, one which actually is in quite a lot of science fiction. And with good cause. It is a deep question, but it is also a very necessary one.
Another response I received was "TL/DR". Which people intend as an insult, hoping to bother the other person, and impress upon them the importance of their own time. But, they are unaware that this may actually reveal themselves as being:
1. A person not well acquainted with reading.
2. A person who is incapable with handling material they have never come across before.
3. A person who probably gets most of their information spoon fed to them, but may be under the illusion that this spoon feeding is equivalent to independent thinking.
4. A person who sincerely believes they are not spoon fed what they believe, but because they tell themselves otherwise, they genuinely are persuaded by this delusion. So, they project. They project because, really, this is exactly their circumstances. And they perceive everyone who does not believe their own, particular spoonfeeding as an 'enemy'.
5. That if they did start to actually dig into something that challenges their deeply held beliefs, they might lose the dream they are in. So, they can not do this.
This is symptomatic with cults. They read material only from their own cult, they only seek confirmation of their pre-existing biases. If someone does dictate that there is material they are forbidden from reading, they create their own dictates, and follow them.
That is, for instance, in cults, like in totalitarian societies, much 'outside material' is banned. This is from the 'top down', is how people in the "free" world often perceive it. 'Outside material' is illegal, by the government, or other dictatorial leadership. But, the reality is, even if you take away that 'top down' leadership, people will tend to try and do this on their own. And the reality is, even if you blame it all on the leadership, it is usually the people who enforce these rules.
Very ironically, strong believers in the almighty truth of the latest scientific theories tend to have some beliefs about this. A pretension to comprehension. Which they tell themselves, over and over again. But, the reality is, they really only apply this to their enemies.
This is why, in my initial response, I pointed out, I read almost all of Dawkins' books. I read Carl Sagan's books. I did not state this, but I state this now: neither Dawkins, nor Sagan, had read the Bible. Both had dabbled, and their conclusions were childish to retarded.
Both were very smart men. So, why was it that they were unable to treat the small parts of the Bible with such shallowness? Both of them relied on 'worst case examples' from the peripheral of society in order to make their cases. Both of them relied on 'what others of my belief system have previously observed about the Bible'. I did not come away feeling that they had read it at all, on their own.
Instead, they treated it from a distance, only approaching what others from their group told them it said.
The same does happen in cults. They do not actually read the Bible on their own. They are told by their cult leaders what it says.
This does not mean I am bothering to argue to evolutionists that they should read the Bible. Because the Bible is not written for them. I do not think they would have the capacity to believe it. This is why they do not read it. The reason for this, is as Paul pointed out, 'God chose the nothings of this world to shame the strong'.
Still, if they did bother to read it on their own, instead of merely 'hearing what others of my group tell me it says', it would certainly challenge their perceptions of the nature of *their* reality. And, they know this. So, they stay far away from it. They would not seriously consider the concepts presented in it, because this could shatter their entire perception of reality.
They love the world. They love their perception of reality. Without it, they face the loss of 'everything'. Because this is where they live. In a delusion. Because we process reality, internally. Everyone has their own reality. They share their reality with others, and come to consensual, mass delusions. Plato's cave 101.
For us 'nothings of this world', we do not find ourselves at home in the world. The popularly accept consensual delusions of reality are not made for us. They are made for those 'of the world'. We are unhappy in the world, because it is not our world. We long for a better world.
The Good News (or Gospel truth), is that God sets this for both groups: for the nothings of the world, God has made us this. That we might be uncomfortable in the world. That we want something better. And, for the somethings of the world, God has made them comfortable in it. Paul concluded his argument by saying, in the end, when the 'nothings shine', then it will be seen "God made all".
Put another way, the sad fact of human beings is: we all tend to believe what we want to believe, based on our preferences. God sets our preferences, ultimately, by our life conditions. These are not easy to be changed. You can, though, at least, become aware of your biases. And attempt to be self-cynical of your beliefs, after doing so.
"Evolutionists" love to tell themselves that they are very cynical. The posture they put themselves in is one of cynicism. They tell themselves they are open minded. They love to talk about 'the war between science and religion', and regale mythologies (and truths) of the heroes who faced down dogmatism of ruling groups of religious leaders. And, yet, they operate in exactly the same way.
And, the sad reality is, the only reason we do not today live in a theocracy is not because of the 'breaking of mythologies by scientists', but because of work from other Christians who challenged the core of their beliefs. The only reason Galileo was persecuted as he was, for instance, was because he was living in the Reformation. He was just caught up in the fray of that.
Indeed, the only reason that these "new" ideas started to break forth, was because the Reformation was already challenging the core ideas of what was, essentially, a theocracy.
'Evolutionists' think of "Christians", in their retellings of history (which they are unfamiliar with), as the leaders of these theocracies. The reality is, those guys were not real Christians. The real Christians were the reformationists, the Orthodox, and the outliers in the Catholic system.
I am not disparaging Galileo here, either. Far from it. But, being entirely ignorant of the environment he was in, besides making it into a cartoon, because it is easier to understand, does not make these sorts of modern mythos more true. It just creates a modern mythology. That it appears, on the surface, to be so different from previous mythologies, which spoke of gods and angels, is irrelevant. These are surface details.
It is ironic that some have considered 'modern prophets to be science fiction writers'. I am not suggesting that 'science fiction' is evil. But, I can point out, a lot of popular science fiction does delve into 'challenging the nature of one's reality', and other deep matter. But, really the takeaway from 'evolutionists' and their ilk, is not on these deeper problems presented.
Usually.
They do have some capacity to deal with deal with some deep matters. As long as these matters confirm their perception of reality, and do not challenge it.
Their takeaway is this delusion that the future will be very much like the present. The aliens will be very much like they are now. The world will be, on the surface, different, but in all practical cases, pretty exactly as it is now.
Spaceships, instead of houses and businesses. Outerspace, instead of planet earth. Aliens that look, outwardly, different. But, in reality, are just reflections of humans, as they are, now. Or some minor variant thereof. Technology that really is meant to appear to be futuristic, but really is just there to give the illusion that 'this is the far future'.
Basically, 'wherever you go, there you are'.
They want shallow fare. There is challenging science fiction, some of this even makes it relatively mainstream, like "Westworld" I mentioned, or "Blade Runner". I really could make quite a long list here. Thankfully, the world is, by tiny increments, getting better for us 'nothings of this world'. However, their takeaway is the shallow fare, but we should be thankful this is there, because otherwise such things would never be given any sort of budget. Because you have to give people shallow fare, if you want it to be anywhere near mainstream.
As Jesus pointed out, prophets tend to be obscure, but false prophets tend to be popular. We have learned a trick out of this. To mix in some poison into their food. To sneak into jobs we were not allowed to have, in the old ages.
But, the delusion of their takeaway is: human beings and the earth, won't really change. What is most dismal about this, is, the whole problem about mortality is almost never addressed. What does it matter if the future has cooler toys, if lifespans remain roughly the same? And, you won't be there, you will be dead?
Jesus, has a monopoly on immortality.
Some science fiction does have depictions of some sort of immortality. Some has become about, recently. People being able to move their consciousness from one form to another. Be this to clone bodies, other people's bodies, or to some sort of robot or computer system. Offhand, I can only think of "Lexx", otherwise, with a depiction of some form of immortality, and "AI". In all of these cases, this is not real immortality. The possibility of death does, strongly, remain.
(Oh, and, how could I forget "Dr Who". Probably the most sure form of immortality I have ever seen presented in science fiction, though even with his regenerative capability and time machine - which can go anywhere in space, thereby evading the mortality of areas of space its' self - can be destroyed.)
And this is our monopoly. This is our advantage. Immortality. The promise of immortality is central to the message of Jesus. We have been aging normally, and dying, most of us. But, with the Spirit comes a sense of immortality, already. We have, what the apostle spoke of, what they do not have: Hope.
With the Spirit, we have a sense of God's eternal consciousness within ourselves. The "hope" spoken of is not a mere word.
This is another area I come across, talking to atheists, and the like: they can imagine themselves not existing. They seem to genuinely have no problem with not existing at death. It is something they seem to be able to comprehend. This is not comprehending something deep or unusual. It is **who they are**. It is 'what they know'. It is all they know.
You should be very aware of this, talking to them. They talk about the future, but their lives are short. They claim to be concerned about the earth, and about future generations, but their behaviors do not really reflect this. They are playing the short game. They are not house owners, they are renters. They have zero true vested interest in the future.
All of who and what they are is about their life, right now.
Dawkins and Sagan do not care at all about what might be being said on their works. They are dead. Maybe they had life insurance and it paid out to someone. But, they did not have life insurance for their souls.
None of these folks are seriously concerned about the long game. Christians are, because this is not - quite yet - our world. This is their world. Though, that is, as we can all observe, changing.
This does mean all of their work, all of their posturing, is done in a set of life circumstances where 'let us eat & drink, and be merry, for tomorrow, we may die'.
Handfuls look for some way to extend their lives. Some money is put into this. The chance they have to do so, now, is grim, and this is obvious. Much more effort is put towards the cures for diseases. This is good, this is fine. We do work in the business of saving lives (and the world), so we find some commonality with this work.
But, more importantly, these guys might die, anyday. They might live a few more decades. That this problem should be on their priority list does not matter to them. That there is a plausible possibility for immortality offered by Jesus, does not matter.
The very possibility is not something they can entertain. They do not challenge their perception of reality, and they can not seriously dwell on the factor of 'death', in their very many thoughts they have. It is one of the last things they ever want to think about. Because they are living, entirely for today.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Here is an example of how evolutionists often confuse and distort an issue by the way they word things, or change wording. The original statement, and the one I responded to, has the term ‘evidence’ first (former) and the term ‘proof’ last (latter). After expounding a bit, the come-back is with a comment like I don’t know the difference, after the ‘former’ and ‘latter’ terms have been reversed. Most never catch these maneuvers, intended or not, and certainly miss it when definitions are changed.
Upvote
0
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
"Conspiracy" is your term... you own it.Ah, so it's a conspiracy that you are claiming exists but it's hidden so you can't point to anything specific.
Makes perfect sense.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,222
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm not dodging, but when you start playing with descriptives you own them.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
