Is it a hoax?

[tevans9129]

OK, I am perfectly willing to give you an opportunity to prove your opinion is correct.

I am willing to answer all questions that you may ask with plausible, verifiable answers and if I do not understand the question, I will ask for clarification or rephrasing and will then answer the question? No excuses, such as it is malformed, it is stupid, it is not relevant, etc. but clear, straightforward answers. I will also address each point that you present, IF, you are willing to reciprocate in like manner, are you? My offer to answer all questions is not unilateral.

If not, then I take your comments as nothing more than your unproven opinions, is that fair?

Some people just cannot accept facts and will make up all kinds of tales as excuses.

I would be shocked if anyone has the courage to engage in a serious discussion with the purpose of determining fact from agenda and beliefs. Talking points do not necessarily equate to fact and if one cannot answer all questions asked, then it is very likely they are not as knowledgeable as they would like for other to believe, IMO.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some people just cannot accept facts and will make up all kinds of tales as excuses.

Yes, those people are called "creationists".

 

[bhsmte]

Text book projection.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't share your view of Biblical authority and inerrancy.

I agree. That's why Jesus said we should cast our pearls before swine because they will just trample them underfoot. If people don't accept the truth of the Bible, which is our only record of God and His plan of salvation, then there is no point reasoning with them. The only qualification for salvation is that folks believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God and that He rose from the dead. The Bible is the only document that tells us about that, so if one doesn't believe the Biblical record then he cannot believe in Jesus at all. Therefore there can be absolutely no assurance of salvation for such a person. Instead there is just a fearful anticipating of approaching old age and death, not knowing what is beyond. The only alternative to the God of the Bible is a fantasy god imagined by deluded people.

 

[pitabread]

The only alternative to the God of the Bible is a fantasy god imagined by deluded people.

You need to understand that from the perspective of a non-believer, they view you the exact same way you view them: someone who believes in a fantasy.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree. That's why Jesus said we should cast our pearls before swine because they will just trample them underfoot. If people don't accept the truth of the Bible, which is our only record of God and His plan of salvation, then there is no point reasoning with them. The only qualification for salvation is that folks believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God and that He rose from the dead. The Bible is the only document that tells us about that, so if one doesn't believe the Biblical record then he cannot believe in Jesus at all. Therefore there can be absolutely no assurance of salvation for such a person. Instead there is just a fearful anticipating of approaching old age and death, not knowing what is beyond. The only alternative to the God of the Bible is a fantasy god imagined by deluded people.

Opinion. Which you are entitled to.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Opinion. Which you are entitled to.

How do you feel being called a swine?

 

[bhsmte]

How do you feel being called a swine?

Comes with the territory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are imagining that your fictional stories about past events are facts.
I'm explaining they are Science/Fictions. That is a permanent diagnosis.
It might take you years to comprehend that. It did me.

Seems you've spent years getting it wrong. In science, the observations, the data, are the facts; the explanations (what you call 'fictional stories') are theories and hypotheses, not facts.

The theories and hypotheses are explanatory models for how the world behaves; when better explanations are discovered, the old models are updated or replaced.

When the mechanisms underlying an explanatory model can be observed working in the world, i.e. the mechanism is factually correct, it is reasonable to say that, by implication, the model is factually correct. Evolution is one such explanatory model. Some people find that hard to deal with.

 

[dmmesdale]

How do you feel being called a swine?

Have you been called worse? The verse, by implication, implies some are swine because they were nonJews, pork eaters, sexual deviants, perhaps Romans. It has to be understood within its first-century context. The times did not reflect a lot of 21st-century sensitivity and why would you expect otherwise?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Have you been called worse? The verse, by implication, implies some are swine because they were nonJews, pork eaters, sexual deviants, perhaps Romans. It has to be understood within its first-century context. The times did not reflect a lot of 21st-century sensitivity and why would you expect otherwise?

The language that Jesus used in this context was metaphorical. He wasn't calling anyone a swine. Nor am I. But He was making the comparison of trying to share information with someone who neither understands nor accepts it and therefore rubbishes it, is like giving something valuable to a herd of pigs for them to trample underfoot. It is useless to reason with an Evolutionist because it is a religion to them and even though it is just a theory with enough holes in it that one could drive a London bus through, they will continue to defend the theory to the last. Even if discoveries were made to prove absolutely that Evolution was a fraud, they would still defend it with all they have.

 

[pitabread]

It is useless to reason with an Evolutionist because it is a religion to them and even though it is just a theory with enough holes in it that one could drive a London bus through, they will continue to defend the theory to the last.

Perhaps the trouble you're having "reasoning" with 'evolutionists' is less to do with issues with the theory of evolution and more to do with your own obviously incorrect perceptions of the scientific theory of evolution. Since evolution is neither a religion nor something with "enough holes in it that one could drive a London bus through".

Rather, it's a core component of the modern biological sciences with real-world, useful applications.

But I suspect you will continue to ignore this fact, since it doesn't jive with your prejudice.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I choose to believe the Genesis account of creation because it takes less faith to believe that than the theory of evolution.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is useless to reason with an Evolutionist because it is a religion to them

One of the clearest cases of projection as could be wished for.

Even if discoveries were made to prove absolutely that Evolution was a fraud, they would still defend it with all they have.

If somebody could prove evolution false, it would mean instant world fame, to rival that of Einstein, and probably a Nobel Prize. So why hasn't anybody done it yet? As one biologist put it, "What creationists fail to realise is that proving evolution false is what every biologist's dreams are made of."

 

[Subduction Zone]

The language that Jesus used in this context was metaphorical. He wasn't calling anyone a swine. Nor am I. But He was making the comparison of trying to share information with someone who neither understands nor accepts it and therefore rubbishes it, is like giving something valuable to a herd of pigs for them to trample underfoot. It is useless to reason with an Evolutionist because it is a religion to them and even though it is just a theory with enough holes in it that one could drive a London bus through, they will continue to defend the theory to the last. Even if discoveries were made to prove absolutely that Evolution was a fraud, they would still defend it with all they have.

Yes, Jesus used metaphorical language quite often. He never explicitly confirmed the myths of Genesis. That is a good thing by the way. If he did that would have been evidence against Christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I choose to believe the Genesis account of creation because it takes less faith to believe that than the theory of evolution.

If one is totally uneducated that may be the case. But it does not take too much education to realize that the Genesis account is a myth. You seem to fear education.

 

[bhsmte]

I choose to believe the Genesis account of creation because it takes less faith to believe that than the theory of evolution.

Not surprising.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If one is totally uneducated that may be the case. But it does not take too much education to realize that the Genesis account is a myth. You seem to fear education.

Oh yes. Probably that is the reason why I have only an M.A. and a M.Div and stopped short getting a PHd.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh yes. Probably that is the reason why I have only an M.A. and a M.Div and stopped short getting a PHd.

You are conflating an education in mere religion with an education. How much science education do you have?

By the way, where did you get this education? The school that you went to will tell us how valid it is.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You are conflating an education in mere religion with an education. How much science education do you have?

About the same as you, unless you have a degree in science. If so, then I'd just be a young curate trying to instruct the Archbishop of Canterbury! My MA is in English Literature, which deals mainly with fiction, so Evolution would fit into that!