Evolution Goes (Retro)Viral

[AV1611VET]

It's very exotic encountering people who do and take it so seriously.

Until you get tired of them and put them on IGNORE ... right?

 

[JohnEmmett]

LOL -- methinks Mr Ussher, et alii, would have something to say about that.

So would Luke.

Perfection is difficult

 

[Astrid]

LOL - I am sure they are all models of propriety. I am not aware of any atheist who has been 'moderated'.

For me, being an Australian atheist on CF is sometimes an occupational hazard due to cultural misunderstandings.

OB

When I vanish in a poof you will know
I've been modulated despite my being what
I consider a model of probity.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL - I am sure they are all models of propriety. I am not aware of any atheist who has been 'moderated'.

For me, being an Australian atheist on CF is sometimes an occupational hazard due to cultural misunderstandings.

OB

To be honest, OB, your little childish remark to me, after I explained fallen angels, caught me by surprise.

Heretothen, I thought more highly of you than that.

But I've been telling myself that you were either just joking or maybe had a little swig of something.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perfection is difficult

It's routine with God.

 

[AV1611VET]

When I vanish in a poof you will know
I've been modulated despite my being what
I consider a model of probity.

You're a skeptic though.

I'm talking about atheists.

 

[JohnEmmett]

It's routine with God.

You often use god for justifying your view

 

[AV1611VET]

You often use god for justifying your view

Really!???

What gives you that idea???

Could it be my standards?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Could it be my standards?

No… you are greedy for perfection

 

[JohnEmmett]

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

See

 

[AV1611VET]

No… you are greedy for perfection

This kind?

2 Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[JohnEmmett]

This kind?

You know what I'm saying

 

[AV1611VET]

See

If that makes me greedy for perfection, imagine what those who make the phone book are greedy for?

Under what circumstances do you contradict the phone book? or a user manual? or a math test?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Under what circumstances do you contradict the phone book? or a user manual? or a math test?

Human error

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Perhaps you are too busy to respond to the very
specific things Ive asked.
Helpful if you did.
Like the, " does that seem reasonable?"

I'm notcgiing to watch a video. That is not reasonable.
I don't discuss things with videos.

If you have a topic yourself, I may be interested to look at it.

Initially, I saw you saying ( very general)things like that science increasingly proves the Bible.

Which I thought remarkable as the opposite is the case
with the " big ticket" items. LIke, say, flood.

Of course prosaic stuff like geography and some
individuals names check out.

I don't know what your non prsctiing astrophysicist
says about evolution. Just saw he rejects it.

Fine. But he has no facts.* Just opinions.
ie twaddle.

I dont know why anyone is attracted to that.
Do you?

* just as if he - doing no research in biology etc
would make the greatest discovery in history, being
the disproof of evolution and, of course, proof of god.

Where's the data? The Nobel?

Seriously?

You know resesrch " due diligence"
Apply it now.

I don't have to prove anything to you. Nor do I have to defend Hugh Ross. If he makes more sense to me than to do, then that is the way it is. If you think he lacks credibility, you have every right to think that. But I am not beholding to you in any way. You are not a mentor for me that I have to justify to you what views I put or where I get them from. If you are going to exert some sort of authority that makes you think I have to answer to you for my views, then that ends our discussion.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

" Might" have gotten it wrong?
Might have?

If like the rest of us you like to be taken
seriously you have to do better than that.

Who are "the rest of us"? I don't care if you take me seriously or not. You are not my teacher and I am not your student, so come down from where you are at and engage in a proper discussion about young verse old earth creation without making it personal. Otherwise, I am out of your loop.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

That's kind of a big if, since you're not sure whether it's a plant or a cockroach that we're more closely related to than a chimpanzee. (and in fact, whichever one you finally decide on... it's just not true.)

I don't care. The point is that humans do not descend from primates. The first humans, Adam and Eve were created as brand new adult human beings and did not evolve from any previous population of half human primates.

Isn't it interesting that in every thread dealing with creation verse evolution, the personal hate speech tends to emerge when people cannot find a satisfactory answer to points put forward by the opposition in a debate.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't have to prove anything to you. Nor do I have to defend Hugh Ross. If he makes more sense to me than to do, then that is the way it is. If you think he lacks credibility, you have every right to think that. But I am not beholding to you in any way. You are not a mentor for me that I have to justify to you what views I put or where I get them from. If you are going to exert some sort of authority that makes you think I have to answer to you for my views, then that ends our discussion.

It's always good to have a teachable spirit.

I guess you're exempt. How lucky you must be.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Isn't it interesting that in every thread dealing with creation verse evolution, the personal hate speech tends to emerge when people cannot find a satisfactory answer to points put forward by the opposition in a debate.

"That's kind of a big if, since you're not sure whether it's a plant or a cockroach that we're more closely related to than a chimpanzee. (and in fact, whichever one you finally decide on... it's just not true.)"

That's really not hate speech. Your position is incoherent and factually wrong. And I haven't been able to answer your point since you haven't decided which biological kingdom your point applies to.

 

[JohnEmmett]

The point is that humans do not descend from primates.

I do not know, hence I do not know what isn't so