- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,785
- 52,552
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
2Peter 3:3a Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And the "signs of the times" have been here for almost 2,000 years. It is getting a bit old.
In the meantime, we'll vote NO at the polls.
No, it doesn't.And your public education system continues to reflect this.
I can't help that.It's getting pretty bad.
Ain't that a shame?You guys are behind countries like Vietnam, Slovenia, and Estonia.
Well, let's get s_x education in our schools, the Bible out, and evolution taught, and then maybe we'll get on top of things, eh?I wonder how long a super power can hang on when it's citizens are amongst the dumbest in the Western world?
Uh-huh.US citizens need to quit attacking science and brainwashing students in social studies. You need your best and brightest to be leading you, not left behind at the start line.
The ID sucks.Theism isn't a requirement of ID. ...
Interesting. I didn't know ID was a useless con game that did not give the creation credit to the creator.Intelligen Design was meant to keep creationism in the classroom.
But in so doing, they opened the door to anything being taught as the designer of the universe.
Thus it could have been Allah, Ra, or anyone else.
Creationism specifies Elohim as the creator.
I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but I do believe the universe was intelligently designed.
From Wikipedia:Interesting. I didn't know ID was a useless con game that did not give the creation credit to the creator.
Not all creationist organizations have embraced the intelligent design movement. According to Thomas Dixon, "Religious leaders have come out against ID too.
An open letter affirming the compatibility of Christian faith and the teaching of evolution, first produced in response to controversies in Wisconsin in 2004, has now been signed by over ten thousand clergy from different Christian denominations across America. In 2006, the director of the Vatican Observatory, the Jesuit astronomer George Coyne, condemned ID as a kind of 'crude creationism' which reduced God to a mere engineer."
Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe, a proponent of Old Earth creationism, believes that the efforts of intelligent design proponents to divorce the concept from Biblical Christianity make its hypothesis too vague. In 2002, he wrote: "Winning the argument for design without identifying the designer yields, at best, a sketchy origins model. Such a model makes little if any positive impact on the community of scientists and other scholars. [...] ...the time is right for a direct approach, a single leap into the origins fray. Introducing a biblically based, scientifically verifiable creation model represents such a leap."
Likewise, two of the most prominent YEC organizations in the world have attempted to distinguish their views from those of the intelligent design movement. Henry M. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) wrote, in 1999, that ID, "even if well-meaning and effectively articulated, will not work! It has often been tried in the past and has failed, and it will fail today. The reason it won't work is because it is not the Biblical method." According to Morris: "The evidence of intelligent design… must be either followed by or accompanied by a sound presentation of true Biblical creationism if it is to be meaningful and lasting."
In 2002, Carl Wieland, then of Answers in Genesis (AiG), criticized design advocates who, though well-intentioned, "'left the Bible out of it'" and thereby unwittingly aided and abetted the modern rejection of the Bible. Wieland explained that "AiG's major 'strategy' is to boldly, but humbly, call the church back to its Biblical foundations… [so] we neither count ourselves a part of this movement nor campaign against it."
2Peter 3:3a Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
People have been saying JESUS SAVES for 2000 years.Again, people have been saying that for 2,000 years. I am not impressed.
People have been saying JESUS SAVES for 2000 years.
I gather it you're not impressed?
I see no point in teaching some vague creation unless the creator is taught too.
Nope, since he has not so far why would anyone think that he would in the future. Think of all of the failed prophesies in the Bible. Failed so badly that reason and logic had to be bent out of shape to make them look like they had half a chance to be fulfilled. Or are you forgetting the Tyre prophecy. A prophecy so bad that me saying "You will see a red car the next time you drive" raises me to the level of a Biblical prophet.
One needs to understand when a prophesy starts to talk about the future. Coming at it wrong will lead to being muddled. You evidence this.
If only creationists could channel that perseverance and dedication into something useful.It's not as if creationism is the only choice when it comes to myths to put against evolution, there are thousands,
and they all fail, that alone must tell you something, all of the creation science and institutes can not come up with a thing, if I was a creationist I would be starting to think something was wrong with our arguments.
What "probabilities"? Every probability argument that I have ever seen against evolution has been fatally flawed. The premises have always been wrong so there was no need to even use any mathematics to debunk their claims.
Nope, since he has not so far why would anyone think that he would in the future. Think of all of the failed prophesies in the Bible. Failed so badly that reason and logic had to be bent out of shape to make them look like they had half a chance to be fulfilled. Or are you forgetting the Tyre prophecy. A prophecy so bad that me saying "You will see a red car the next time you drive" raises me to the level of a Biblical prophet.
Every argument against evolution has been conveniently explained away (in language that few understand).
Nope, since he has not so far why would anyone think that he would in the future. Think of all of the failed prophesies in the Bible. Failed so badly that reason and logic had to be bent out of shape to make them look like they had half a chance to be fulfilled. Or are you forgetting the Tyre prophecy. A prophecy so bad that me saying "You will see a red car the next time you drive" raises me to the level of a Biblical prophet.
Explain why you feel the Tyre prophecy has failed. Detail what was predicted and what failed please.
We've been through the Tyre prophecy, and it stands. The Tyre that was destroyed was never rebuilt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?