[MOVED] Denying God's Creation because we prefer the darkness

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't know you were a literalist.

I am not.

You do realize that every time you dodge a question that you should be able to answer you as much as admit that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your opinion, is the homeowner a man, as the KJB says; or a woman, as your NIV says?

In your opinion.

Colossians 4:15 [KJB] Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Colossians 4:15 [NIV] Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

No, you simply do not understand the Bible. When one has to use such a convoluted approach one ends up with countless self contradictions. Your poorly chosen verse only demonstrates that one translation is correct and one is wrong. Can you read Koine Greek? I can't. But there are more versions of that. I would say that since the translators of the KJV made quite a few errors that this would count as one of them:

Colossians 4:15 Greet the brothers in Laodicea, as well as Nympha and the church that meets at her house.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your opinion, is the homeowner a man, as the KJB says; or a woman, as your NIV says?

In your opinion.

Colossians 4:15 [KJB] Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Colossians 4:15 [NIV] Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.

I cannot speak Latin. Laodicea was a Roman province. But assuming that the gender indicated by a name has not changed going from Latin to more modern Romance languages it appears that Nympha was a woman. Oh wait, a quick Google search may turn up the answer:

Aaah, Greek, not Roman. And the sex depends upon an accent. Modern consensus is that Nymphas was a woman:

Nympha: A House Church Leader in the Lycus Valley (Colossians 4:15) | Marg Mowczko

This is one of the problems with the KJV, inadequate translations. This is not a clear error, but the evidence goes against your translation of choice in this example.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sub, do you go through this rigmarole with every single verse of Scripture? or just when you feel like telling someone they're wrong?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sub, do you go through this rigmarole with every single verse of Scripture? or just when you feel like telling someone they're wrong?

You were the one that posted the source that refuted you, not me. Why do you blame others when you screw up?

I am interested in learning. I do not want to be wrong. Merely trying to defend one's errant beliefs causes one to chase one's own tail eventually.

 

[loveofourlord]

The problem with the theory of evolution is the lack of any evidence. Of the billions of fossils found, we have never found a single fossil of a species in transition from one species to another.

So there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory.

*laughs* ummm do you even know what a fossil transitioning into another would look like? Because we have them all the time, this sounds like the people that expect a crocoduck, then get upset when they see feathered dinosaurs. If you don't think transitioning fossils don't exist, tell me what one would look like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

*laughs* ummm do you even know what a fossil transitioning into another would look like? Because we have them all the time, this sounds like the people that expect a crocoduck, then get upset when they see feathered dinosaurs. If you don't think transitioning fossils don't exist, tell me what one would look like.

Yes, we do know. Understanding evolution makes that rather easy. In fact if you knew what a transitional fossil was you would understand this.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yes, we do know. Understanding evolution makes that rather easy. In fact if you knew what a transitional fossil was you would understand this.

heh oh I agree with evolution, I was asking him, when people say there are no transitional fossil I wonder what the expect it to look like.

 

[Subduction Zone]

heh oh I agree with evolution, I was asking him, when people say there are no transitional fossil I wonder what the expect it to look like.

Oh sorry, my error.

Sadly I have found that the deniers never want to learn if they are right or wrong. They are only looking for an excuse to believe their interpretation of the Bible. Only once have I had one take me up on my offer to discuss the concept of evidence, and when he saw that it was obvious that he was wrong he ran away. Sadly not here or any forum in existence today. He could see that he was going to have to admit that he was wrong about all of his claims regarding evolution so he ran away rather than doing the right thing.

 

[loveofourlord]

Oh sorry, my error.

Sadly I have found that the deniers never want to learn if they are right or wrong. They are only looking for an excuse to believe their interpretation of the Bible. Only once have I had one take me up on my offer to discuss the concept of evidence, and when he saw that it was obvious that he was wrong he ran away. Sadly not here or any forum in existence today. He could see that he was going to have to admit that he was wrong about all of his claims regarding evolution so he ran away rather than doing the right thing.

yeah, just frustrates me, specially like in this topic and the previous where they are trying so hard to disprove evolution, by can't ever succeed to convince someone that actually understands it because they are so off base, not sure what they hope to acomplish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yeah, just frustrates me, specially like in this topic and the previous where they are trying so hard to disprove evolution, by can't ever succeed to convince someone that actually understands it because they are so off base, not sure what they hope to acomplish.

I know. I just don't get it. If I am wrong I want to know it. I used to argue against AGW, but I am surprised at what a rarity I am because I would read the sources provided to me by those I was debating against. I wanted to make a valid argument and found after a while that I could not longer do so in opposition to AGW. Wanting it to be false was not enough.

 

[loveofourlord]

I know. I just don't get it. If I am wrong I want to know it. I used to argue against AGW, but I am surprised at what a rarity I am because I would read the sources provided to me by those I was debating against. I wanted to make a valid argument and found after a while that I could not longer do so in opposition to AGW. Wanting it to be false was not enough.

yeah, I've said it before, but the best they are going to do by convincing me the bible is incompatible with evolution is tell me bible is wrong, thats how much I see and understand evolutiona and it's truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yeah, I've said it before, but the best they are going to do by convincing me the bible is incompatible with evolution is tell me bible is wrong, thats how much I see and understand evolutiona and it's truth.

There may be quite a bit of truth in what you say. It is purely anecdotal, but I have heard that those that were brought up in extremist churches are losing their faith and becoming atheists at quite the pace. There is nothing like being "really wrong" to convince you that everything that you believed is wrong.

 

[driewerf]

The problem with the theory of evolution is the lack of any evidence. Of the billions of fossils found, we have never found a single fossil of a species in transition from one species to another.

So there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory.

Individual organisms don't evolve, populations do, from one generation to another. You knew that or before you wrote your post not?

Fossils are dead, so even individual organisms did evolve (they don't for the record), the fossils we found would still not be evolving. You knew that before you wrote your post or not?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

There is nothing like being "really wrong" to convince you that everything that you believed is wrong.

That is why there is such blind resistance. Same with flat Earthers.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Also, think of the role in classification. organisms are classified in a hierarchical system that attempts to illustrate the evolutionary relationships between the various groupings within the hierarchy. This concept of relatedness forms the backbone of modern classification schemes.

Ever since this Covid thin I have become fascinated with plants and taxonomy. My favorites are the evergreens, cupraseseae.

And it has resurrected my Latin. Even he pronunciations are interesting. At least three different options.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also, think of the role in classification. organisms are classified in a hierarchical system that attempts to illustrate the evolutionary relationships between the various groupings within the hierarchy. This concept of relatedness forms the backbone of modern classification schemes.

Ever since this Covid thin I have become fascinated with plants and taxonomy. My favorites are the evergreens, cupraseseae.

And it has resurrected my Latin. Even he pronunciations are interesting. At least three different options.

The man that formed the original classification scheme was a creationist. And even he recognized that people were apes. Even without a prejudice for evolution he put animal life into the nested hierarchies of evolution, which refutes the claims of creationists that say scientists only see evolution because they want to see evolution.

 

[lifepsyop]

yeah, just frustrates me, specially like in this topic and the previous where they are trying so hard to disprove evolution, by can't ever succeed to convince someone that actually understands it because they are so off base, not sure what they hope to acomplish.

Most evolutionists have a list of memorized talking points and cannot stray from that comfort zone.

I remember years ago, discovering that most evolutionists don't even understand how to think about Evolution in any sort of critical way. Any kind of criticism of Evolution theory or naturalistic philosophy is automatically regarded as some kind of creationist trick or deception... like just the very act of questioning Evolution is some type of deceitful enemy action. Their minds are simply not open to questioning it. This is part of the reason why Evolution is so often characterized as a religion.

It reminds me of the "Anthropic principle" ... this principle is automatically summoned like an incantation or a mantra, or binding spell... used in order to save the Evolutionist from having to consider how strange and unlikely it is that mindless clouds of stardust were somehow organized into this stunning earth with humans possessing the ability to have rich discussions and reflections on their origins.

Evolutionists are trapped in a darkened mode of thinking. They willingly cut themselves off from the light and truth of Creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most evolutionists have a list of memorized talking points and cannot stray from that comfort zone.

I remember years ago, discovering that most evolutionists don't even understand how to think about Evolution in any sort of critical way. Any kind of criticism of Evolution theory or naturalistic philosophy is automatically regarded as some kind of creationist trick or deception... like just the very act of questioning Evolution is some type of deceitful enemy action. Their minds are simply not open to questioning it. This is part of the reason why Evolution is so often characterized as a religion.

It reminds me of the "Anthropic principle" ... this principle is automatically summoned like an incantation or a mantra, or binding spell... used in order to save the Evolutionist from having to consider how strange and unlikely it is that mindless clouds of stardust were somehow organized into this stunning earth with humans possessing the ability to have rich discussions and reflections on their origins.

Evolutionists are trapped in a darkened mode of thinking. They willingly cut themselves off from the light and truth of Creation.

Really? Can you site a specific example?

By the way, the term is "realists" not evolutionists. Do you call someone that accepts the fact of gravity a "gravitationalist"?

 

[loveofourlord]

Most evolutionists have a list of memorized talking points and cannot stray from that comfort zone.

I remember years ago, discovering that most evolutionists don't even understand how to think about Evolution in any sort of critical way. Any kind of criticism of Evolution theory or naturalistic philosophy is automatically regarded as some kind of creationist trick or deception... like just the very act of questioning Evolution is some type of deceitful enemy action. Their minds are simply not open to questioning it. This is part of the reason why Evolution is so often characterized as a religion.

It reminds me of the "Anthropic principle" ... this principle is automatically summoned like an incantation or a mantra, or binding spell... used in order to save the Evolutionist from having to consider how strange and unlikely it is that mindless clouds of stardust were somehow organized into this stunning earth with humans possessing the ability to have rich discussions and reflections on their origins.

Evolutionists are trapped in a darkened mode of thinking. They willingly cut themselves off from the light and truth of Creation.

billions of galaxes, with billions of stars, many with planets, and you wonder how the earth could have formed? In our own solar system there is no less then 2 other places that may have life.

Europa under the ice
and forget which one but one of jupiters moons I believe it is has some strange chemical thing going on that could be life, or a novel chemical thing we don't know about.

give me some evidence rather then adhoc and insults, give me something to work with, plus tell me what would a animal evolving into something else look like if we havn't found them. So far all I see is rudeness from you, hardly very Christian behavior.