If the Discovery Institute Listened to Me

[AV1611VET]

Please do because I am genuinely curious by this idea because, as I said, it is frankly rude and invasive.

Will do.

I'll let you know what he says.

And no, I don't think it's "rude and invasive" to pray for someone's salvation; whether said person is alive or dead.

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Will do.

I'll let you know what he says.

And no, I don't think it's "rude and invasive" to pray for someone's salvation; whether said person is alive or dead.

Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

Of course you don't think it's rude, otherwise you wouldn't do it.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Maybe I should start another ATHEIST NIGHTMARE thread and post the Lady Hope story.

What do you think?

If you want to make yourself look silly

 

[Mr Laurier]

You are mostly correct.

Ok. So point out what i got wrong

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok. So point out what i got wrong

I'll enumerate them for ease of answering:

[Dan] But there is more though.

1. You do believe that having him reconvert back to christianity, would somehow invalidate all his research and observations.
2. You do believe that he renounced his work as a biologist as well.
3. And you believe that the whole of evolutionary biology rests on Darwin being an atheist.
4. A position refuted by every fact, but which creationists still cling to.

Am I correct in this? Or am I mistaken? [/Dan]

1. Where his research and observations differ from the King James Bible, his research and observations are wrong.
2. If he did, I'm not aware of it; but I'll take a guess and say he denied most of it.
3. Nope.
4. I disagree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll enumerate them for ease of answering:

[Dan] But there is more though.

1. You do believe that having him reconvert back to christianity, would somehow invalidate all his research and observations.
2. You do believe that he renounced his work as a biologist as well.
3. And you believe that the whole of evolutionary biology rests on Darwin being an atheist.
4. A position refuted by every fact, but which creationists still cling to.

Am I correct in this? Or am I mistaken? [/Dan]

1. Where his research and observations differ from the King James Bible, his research and observations are wrong.
2. If he did, I'm not aware of it; but I'll take a guess and say he denied most of it.
3. Nope.
4. I disagree.

And you are once again back to claiming that the Earth is Flat. The KJV is not the best translation, why give it more credence than other more recent and more accurate works? That smacks of idolatry.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you want to make yourself look silly

I think with AV, it's more of an instinctive thing, rather than a conscious desire.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I'll enumerate them for ease of answering:



1. Where his research and observations differ from the King James Bible, his research and observations are wrong.
.

And yet his results are verified by modern testing.
Every observation has been verified by subsequent testing.
How do you explain this?

2. If he did, I'm not aware of it; but I'll take a guess and say he denied most of it.

Alas, he never did any such thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Warden, after talking with my pastor, he says it's okay to pray the way I do it.

CORRECT: LORD, I pray Charles Darwin got saved before he died.

INCORRECT: LORD, I pray Charles Darwin gets saved.

The first prayer is just a general statement about how one feels in his heart about souls.

The second prayer is a plea that amounts to praying for the dead, which is unscriptural.

Neither prayer is doctrinal.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Warden, after talking with my pastor, he says it's okay to pray the way I do it.

CORRECT: LORD, I pray Charles Darwin got saved before he died.

INCORRECT: LORD, I pray Charles Darwin gets saved.

The first prayer is just a general statement about how one feels in his heart about souls.

The second prayer is a plea that amounts to praying for the dead, which is unscriptural.

Neither prayer is doctrinal.

Okay, fair enough.

 

[tas8831]

It's been a while since I looked at the status of the Discovery Institute but I recall it was in some financial difficulty. Public interest in ID appears to have evaporated.

​

Their "journal" went belly up, as did their "research" institute...

 

[tas8831]

1. Clearly articulate your theological issues with evolutionary science.

That your #1 posits theological issues with science is a non-starter.

Who cares what anyone's religious gripes about things they do not understand/were brainwashed into rejecting are?

 

[J_B_]

That your #1 posits theological issues with science is a non-starter.

OK. The polemic business must be slow if it's necessary to dig up posts from a month ago. But if it's a non-starter for you, we need say no more.

Who cares what anyone's religious gripes about things they do not understand/were brainwashed into rejecting are?

I gave a reason in that same post, but you snipped it.

Beyond that, I would never recommend someone ignore their concerns and accept without a thought what others claim. If someone has a question, I think open discussion is a good thing. Further, I would never recommend someone lie about their position. If such is your position, be honest about it (in a civil manner).