If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[KerrMetric]

More Copy/Paste from that secular wiki again...

Wikipedia is neither secular nor theist. It's just a Wiki. Tell me where they are wrong.

 

[KerrMetric]

The college has varied its policies over the years, but it has been criticized for awarding students degrees based on questionable standards such "life experience" or "ministry evaluation" that lack academic rigour and merit, issuing advanced degrees in months rather than years, and for charging a monthly fee (most universities charge a per-credit fee). The school's catalog contains course descriptions but no listing of the school's faculty or their credentials.
The university is not accredited by any federally recognized accreditation. Patriot is recognized by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, which has no US Department of Education/government approval.[4] The AAATI is itself considered an accreditation mill.[5] The group provides approval to schools for a $100 charge.[6]
[edit]

I love this. They get recognition for $100 from some nefarious outfit.

No faculty listing. Life experience awards.

LOL This isn't a school its a scam.

 

[livingword26]

lots of labels
yes theology is a technical field and has it's own technical vocabulary. if you wish to play in someone else's sandbox the least you can do is properly learn their vocabulary so you can communicate with them. why else be there?


you miss the point entirely.
if you took Gen 1 literally you would be SDA or at least Sabbatarian. But YECists are (in general) not. Why?


do you have any idea of the history of biblical hermeneutics?
who is the first consistently literal theologian that justified the "primacy of the literal"? why?

btw.
i am TE yet understand Gen 1 to be using 24 hour days, so what?

Sorry, I didn't know I was in a sandbox. I don't put a lot of stock in history, theologians or scholars. I just spent 2 days arguing with a person who was convinced that several verses in the bible (that did not fit his false doctrine) did not belong there. He listed a very long page of commentaries by scholars, theologians and historians to, back his position. I am not interested in your catagories of people or your ways of identifying people or your doctrines or labels. I believe the bible and I believe in the Holy Sprit that teaches me. Using the bible literally when possible and obviouse is really the only thing we can do and have a prayer of having any unity in the church. The reason we don't is because everyone wants to create their own doctrine and exhalt themsleves with their brilliant minds. This happens either because they deny the bible entirely, or they deny the parts of the bible that conflict with their doctrine or they deny that a verse means what it says. Why should the literal be the default view? Because God is not a God of confusion,and we can beleive what He says. I think that if people really believed in God, they would believe the bible.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Not hard to find www.patriotuniversity.com
guess you really are tired if ya can't find that...

That's where I looked... where are its records?

 

[KerrMetric]

That's where I looked... where are its records?

I know Creationists get desperate at times but defending a degree mill and Hovind actually having a PhD is even far fetched for them. I woder why Gwenyfur is so desperate on this?

 

[The Lady Kate]

I know Creationists get desperate at times but defending a degree mill and Hovind actually having a PhD is even far fetched for them. I woder why Gwenyfur is so desperate on this?

Attempt to discredit Wikipedia, while simultaneously defending Patriot University... do they make Irony Meters that strong?

 

[Gwenyfur]

Attempt to discredit Wikipedia, while simultaneously defending Patriot University... do they make Irony Meters that strong?

Considering how little wiki actually gets edited or reviewed...not that desperate...

or is CNN wrong again?

 

[KerrMetric]

... do they make Irony Meters that strong?

I believe the E/C board certified dad-o-meter is up to the task. These can even handle their namesake poster dad.

 

[livingword26]

[/b]



I love this. They get recognition for $100 from some nefarious outfit.

No faculty listing. Life experience awards.

LOL This isn't a school its a scam.

Actually Dr Hovind gets a kick out of people attacking him like this.

(Luke 6:22
22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you , and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
KJV)

He is truly and evangelist. If you took the time to go to his web site and look around you would see a lot of articles by a lot of other people besides him. If you have ever seen him in a debate, you could not only see that he has lot of valid facts and theories, but that he truly cares about getting people saved. Why do you suppose that you are so opposed to him?

 

[KerrMetric]

Considering how little wiki actually gets edited or reviewed...not that desperate...

or is CNN wrong again?

Huh? Wikipedia got high marks for accuracy though I find it lacking in science at times for detail. But it gets edited all the time if you look at the discussion pages.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I believe the E/C board certified dad-o-meter is up to the task. These can even handle their namesake poster dad.

Wow... must be the industrial-strength model. I've only had brief encounters with dad's threads before leaving him to his ideas...

 

[KerrMetric]

If you have ever seen him in a debate, you could not only see that he has lot of valid facts and theories, but that he truly cares about getting people saved. Why do you suppose that you are so opposed to him?

Because he is a liar for starters. And for every person he has saved I'd wager 10 became atheists. People are suckers for honesty and his lying shines through brilliantly.

He hasn't a single valid theory in his arsenal. Why do you thik even groups like AIG slam him? He gives even the mild cranks a bad name.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Huh? Wikipedia got high marks for accuracy though I find it lacking in science at times for detail. But it gets edited all the time if you look at the discussion pages.

Of course, now the argument will instantly shift to the predictable creatonist rebuttal: "Why then should we trust it if it's always changing? It could say something totally different tomorrow!!!!!!"

 

[shernren]

Even AiG dismisses Hovind's arguments ... oops, CMI International. Hehehehe.

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2571/

 

[Scholar in training]

Because God is not a God of confusion,and we can beleive what He says.

This immediately leads you to a problem: how do we know who the Holy Spirit is speaking to? Without looking at why we come to our conclusions, we won't be able to learn anything. If you took the entire Bible "literally" without interpreting it in light of external evidence, then you would be a full preterist (Isaiah 34:3-5, spoken against Babylon, uses some "apocalyptic language" for hyperbolic effect even though the heavens have not "dissolved" and the Second Coming has clearly not happened yet).

Scholars can and do defend the Bible, too, you know.

 

[KerrMetric]

Wow... must be the industrial-strength model. I've only had brief encounters with dad's threads before leaving him to his ideas...

Yep, they are a doozy. They are first checked by being placed within a parsec of a Gamma Ray Burst hypernova. Then, if they pass, they are subjected to a random dad thread. After that they are certified by Underwriters Laboratories as ready for general use.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Sorry, I didn't know I was in a sandbox. I don't put a lot of stock in history, theologians or scholars. I just spent 2 days arguing with a person who was convinced that several verses in the bible (that did not fit his false doctrine) did not belong there. He listed a very long page of commentaries by scholars, theologians and historians to, back his position. I am not interested in your catagories of people or your ways of identifying people or your doctrines or labels. I believe the bible and I believe in the Holy Sprit that teaches me. Using the bible literally when possible and obviouse is really the only thing we can do and have a prayer of having any unity in the church. The reason we don't is because everyone wants to create their own doctrine and exhalt themsleves with their brilliant minds. This happens either because they deny the bible entirely, or they deny the parts of the bible that conflict with their doctrine or they deny that a verse means what it says. Why should the literal be the default view? Because God is not a God of confusion,and we can beleive what He says. I think that if people really believed in God, they would believe the bible.

and you believe that the ideas you express here are new to you? and directly from the Scriptures? just because you don't desire to understand the words or theologians or whatever that makes you immune to their ideas? i've come to suspect that there are few people as deluded as those who believe that they have discovered a new idea or that that thinking is something easy.

I believe the bible and I believe in the Holy Sprit that teaches me.
then wouldn't you expect that the Holy Spirit has spoken just as clearly to people in the past as He does to you today? that God uses means and those means might very well be those very scholars, theologians and historians* you denigrate?

fine. thanks for playing.
we apparently believe God intends us to do different things with our heads.


"an unexamined life is not worth living"
----attributed to Socrates

"Study to show yourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth"
2 Tim 2:15 KJV

For centuries, philosophers and theologians have spoken of God's "two books." Bonaventura called them the liber naturae and the liber scripturae. Francis Bacon, generations later, called them "the book of "God's Words" and the "the book of God's Works." Still later, natural theologians like William Paley maintained that the book of nature reflected the grace of God no less than the book of scripture.

Though scientists and scholars, when in a particularly poetic frame of mind, occasionally speak today of "two books," the vitality of the metaphor has greatly diminished. The notion that nature and scripture are both the product of a single divine author has been largely replaced, until recently at least, by the notion that science and religion are irremediably foreign and necessarily antagonistic.

This is a great shame. Taken seriously, the "two books" metaphor could have tremendous value today, more for the productive questions it raises, than for answers that it in itself might provide. Viewing nature and scripture as two books raises questions about how knowledge is (or ought to be) attained. To what extent, for example, might science be viewed as an exegetical pursuit? And if science is seen as a sort of exegesis, are there ways in which its methods can be augmented or improved by incorporating sophisticated exegetical techniques developed by theologians over the centuries?

from: http://www.metanexus.net/lectures/winners/bar_ilan.asp


*

My friend, you remind me of the guy who was caught in a flood and prayed to God to be saved. Along came a neighbor in a small fishing boat, and the guy said he was waiting for God. So he prayed some more, and along came another neighbor in a raft. Nope, the guy was waiting for God to save him. So he prayed some more, and along came a heliocopter with a rope ladder saying, "Climb the ladder--we have room for one more." Nope the guy was waiting for God to save him...and the flood waters rose and he drowned. So in heaven, he sees God and says, "God! Why did you forsake me?? I prayed and trusted in you to save me and you let me drown!" and God says, "What do you mean? I sent you three people to save you!"

best example i know of God's use of means and the common way to dismiss it.

 

[Gwenyfur]

 

[The Lady Kate]

Yep, they are a doozy. They are first checked by being placed within a parsec of a Gamma Ray Burst hypernova. Then, if they pass, they are subjected to a random dad thread. After that they are certified by Underwriters Laboratories as ready for general use.

I'd hate to be a ground zero when one of those explodes...the Irony Meter, not the hypernova (although I'm guessing the nova isn't all that pleasant up close either)

 

[KerrMetric]

I'd hate to be a ground zero when one of those explodes...the Irony Meter, not the hypernova (although I'm guessing the nova isn't all that pleasant up close either)

There is some Big Bang models that involve the dad-o-meter as the agent of inflationary cosmology due to the energy output if they break. A nasty beast indeed.