If the Discovery Institute Listened to Me

[AV1611VET]

So now you are using a "there is no God" argument.

Genesis 1:1a In the beginning God ...

That truth is believed by every single Christian that ever lived, is alive today, and ever will be alive tomorrow.

That's 100% agreement.

One ... hundred ... percent.

With no exceptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I beg your pardon?

Here's a reply I made to Subduction Zone years ago:

Does that sound to you like I can't bring myself to accept that Mr Darwin is in Westminster?

You are mostly correct.

AV, you know that evolution is true regardless of what Darwin thought. This has been explained to you many times and it is confirmed by your own actions here. You simply do not want evolution to be true. For some odd reason you seem to think that smearing Darwin with false allegations after he died will make his theory go away.

Sorry but it won't. You could try to claim that he became a Muslim. It would not change the fact that you are an ape.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genesis 1:1a In the beginning God ...

That truth is believed by every single Christian that ever lived, is alive today, and ever will be alive tomorrow.

That's 100% agreement.

One ... hundred ... percent.

With no exceptions.

Sorry, too late for that. You already made the argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do not think that anyone believes your claimed reason.

I'm going to have to disagree on that.

If that were true it would make more sense to keep it to yourself.

Enough of me.

Let's see your specific reason for wanting to believe that Mr Darwin didn't get saved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm going to have to disagree on that.

Enough of me.

Let's see your specific reason for wanting to believe that Mr Darwin didn't get saved.

Your question is improperly formed. It can't be answered as asked. It assumes facts not in existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

You could try to claim that he became a Muslim.

No thanks.

That's not a part of the Lady Hope story.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No thanks.

That's not a part of the Lady Hope story.

There is no difference between the two.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your question is improperly formed. It can't be answered as asked. It assumes facts not in existence.

Ain't THAT a gas!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ain't THAT a gas!

I guess that your goal was just more personal attacks against Darwin.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no difference between the two.

Depends on which side you're on.

Lady Hope's, or Charles Darwin's first cousins' children.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess that your goal was just more personal attacks against Darwin.

Yup.

Attacked him right into Heaven, didn't I?

If what I believe is true, then guess what?

Luke 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

All the angels rejoiced!

Those "other angels" however, might not have liked it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Depends on which side you're on.

Lady Hope's, or Charles Darwin's first cousins' children.

It was rebutted by Darwin's children.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup.

Attacked him right into Heaven, didn't I?

If what I believe is true, then guess what?

Luke 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

All the angels rejoiced!

Those "other angels" however, might not have liked it.

Nope. That is your inconsistent fantasy. You also believe that Darwin telling the truth would put him in hell. His theory was not a sin. How could he repent for that?

 

[AV1611VET]

It was rebutted by Darwin's children.

That's what I said.

And thank you for changing "refuted" to "rebutted."

 

[AV1611VET]

You also believe that Darwin telling the truth would put him in hell.

Nope.

Not even close.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what I said.

And thank you for changing "refuted" to "rebutted."

No it wasn't. In this case the rebuttal was a refutation. You might want to look up the definitions of those terms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope.

Not even close.

Sorry, your actions speak more loudly than your words.

 

[AV1611VET]

No it wasn't. In this case the rebuttal was a refutation. You might want to look up the definitions of those terms.

Sorry, your actions speak more loudly than your words.

You do realize I think you're just rambling, don't you?

I'm not sure what you have against me, but your posts show a given amount of disrespect for what I believe.

And I get the impression it's personal with you for some reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do realize I think you're just rambling, don't you?

I'm not sure what you have against me, but your posts show a given amount of disrespect for what I believe.

Really? It appears that you have totally shut down the ability to reason rationally on your part. Have you forgotten how the fact of evolution caused you to adopt a Flat Earth heuristic?

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you forgotten how the fact of evolution caused you to adopt a Flat Earth heuristic?

The only Flat Earth heuristic I can see is an heuristic that accepts overliteralism.