My Bad Seed Challenge

[[serious]]

For some people, mediocrity is an accomplishment.

Sharpshooter isn't "mediocre", that would be going too far. It's like getting a B on a test.

 

[[serious]]

Big deal.

Myopic science can't even see (or hear) the target ten feet in front of them,* yet they brag so much about what they see, they expect Bible literalists to drop their faith.

* Bumper stickers, Christmas decorations, hymns, churches, etc., that attest to the existence of God.

You are citing christmas decorations as evidence of what they portray? Like flying reindeer and magic sleds?

Actually, that's somewhat more reasonable than your flying clams theory.

 

[florida2]

You've obviously never played monkey-see-monkey-do, have you?

No idea what you're talking about.

 

[florida2]

Religion does not save you. The Church does not save you. Only the Precious Blood of Jesus can save you. He paid the price for our salvation at carvery. God had a plan from the very beginning, from the foundation of the world.

Way to completely ignore what I was saying.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I only know about the third world nation that my wife comes from. In general poor people are happy and rich people are miserable.

That's not true in the slightest. Money has a positive correlation with happiness until one has enough to not be struggling to pay the bills, and can provide decent education for their children. After that point, there isn't a positive OR negative correlation between happiness and money. You're just thinking of celebrity news, or a small number of well-to-do people that is nowhere near a high enough sample to be representative of any trends amongst the rich. You do seem to have fun pulling generalizations out of your behind that completely contradict reality. Btw, fame is what stresses out the celebrities, as well as harsh schedules for the sorts of jobs that grant both wealth and fame, not the money.

But it does not always work out that way. There are people that want three things in life: a roof over their head, food on the table and shoes for their feet. There are women that would marry any man that is able to provide that for them and their future children.

Only those who struggle to obtain those things desire only that much. People will often set goals they think they have a chance of reaching, and if it seems unreasonable to expect more than that in life, people won't aim for anything else. That doesn't mean that they will be actually satisfied once they reach those goals, or that how they reach them won't make them unhappy.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Way to completely ignore what I was saying.

You said: "does that mean they are all true?" I am not saying they are "all" true. Only they Bible is 100% accurate and true because of two reasons. One is the mathematical precision of the Bible. The second is because God stands behind His word to verify and to perform His work. What God says He will do, He will do. WE have a covenant relationship with God. The Old and the New Testament are Old and New Covenant. Still they are a Covenant and God does stand behind them.

Your alleged mistakes, errors and inaccuracies simply do not exist.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That's not true in the slightest. Money has a positive correlation with happiness until one has enough to not be struggling to pay the bills, and can provide decent education for their children. After that point, there isn't a positive OR negative correlation between happiness and money. You're just thinking of celebrity news, or a small number of well-to-do people that is nowhere near a high enough sample to be representative of any trends amongst the rich. You do seem to have fun pulling generalizations out of your behind that completely contradict reality. Btw, fame is what stresses out the celebrities, as well as harsh schedules for the sorts of jobs that grant both wealth and fame, not the money.

Perhaps you never heard the story about the rich man in the Bible. Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Our real treasure is to be in Heaven based on what we have to work with here in this world.

 

[Jimmy D]

Only they Bible is 100% accurate

*Apart from little details like the Adam and Eve, the worldwide flood, Exodus, Miracles, etc....

Reminds me of "What have the Romans ever done for us?" from Life of Brian.

 

[VirOptimus]

Perhaps you never heard the story about the rich man in the Bible. Jesus told him, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Our real treasure is to be in Heaven based on what we have to work with here in this world.

So, have you sold all your wordly possessions and given the proceedings to the poor?

If not, is the bible wrong in this instance? If not, are you not strong enough in faith? Or are you a hypocrite?

 

[joshua 1 9]

*Apart from little details like the Adam and Eve, the worldwide flood, Exodus, Miracles, etc....

Science is limited in what science can do. So science does not have proof for everything. We do know that nothing in the Bible can be falsified. For example we are told that Adam lived to be almost 1,000 years old. There is no scientific evidence one way or the other that people lived to be this long. Although there are references outside of the Bible that people did live long lives back then. The Sumerian King List is an example. This is not evidence for long life but this does take you in that direction. AGAIN the point is science can not PROVE one way or the other IF Adam lived this long. There is a LOT that we do not know. New information surfaces all the time.

"The early list names eight kings with a total of 241,200 years from the time when kingship “descended from heaven” to the time when "the Flood" swept over the land and once more "the kingship was lowered from heaven" after the Flood."

http://www.ancient-origins.net/myth...-century-research-001287#sthash.KemYvBuz.dpuf

 

[joshua 1 9]

So, have you sold all your wordly possessions and given the proceedings to the poor?

Yes I have and I got it all back again. The Bible says: "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom." I learned the meaning of this passage when I was traveling in a third world nation. IF we truly love people then we will put them ahead of ourselves. If their need is greater then ours then we will gladly give all we have to help them. In a world like this no one is overweight because there are others that need that excess food more then you do. Have you ever eaten a meal and had people watching and waiting for the food you do not want so they can eat their dinner? You eat what you need and that is it. You give the rest of the food to the people that need it MORE then you do.

This is going to be difficult for you to understand here in America because of the prosperity here. Seldom do we run into people who have a need greater then ourselves. Also this is no big deal. As kids we go camping with the scouts or to summer camp where we try to get by with as little as we can. I spend two years in boarding school where we get by on as little as we can. In the army you can only keep what you can carry in your duffle bag. Once I lived out of a back pack for 90 days. In fact I wish I did have less junk, it is really a burden to have to carry. The less stuff we have the more happy we are. Still we need to be a good steward of what we have. Now we try to take as little as we can when we travel because we know that we will pick up stuff along the way. So we try to give away as much as we can so we do not have to be burdened to carry that stuff.

In Heaven there is no money. If you have something people want then you are happy to give it to them. Whatever your skills or talents are if you can do something to help people then you are happy that you are able to do something for others.

 

[Jimmy D]

Science is limited in what science can do. So science does not have proof for everything. We do know that nothing in the Bible can be falsified. For example we are told that Adam lived to be almost 1,000 years old. There is no scientific evidence one way or the other that people lived to be this long. Although there are references outside of the Bible that people did live long lives back then. The Sumerian King List is an example. This is not evidence for long life but this does take you in that direction. AGAIN the point is science can not PROVE one way or the other IF Adam lived this long. There is a LOT that we do not know. New information surfaces all the time.

"The early list names eight kings with a total of 241,200 years from the time when kingship “descended from heaven” to the time when "the Flood" swept over the land and once more "the kingship was lowered from heaven" after the Flood."

http://www.ancient-origins.net/myth...-century-research-001287#sthash.KemYvBuz.dpuf

So why do you keep saying that science proves the bible? It obviously doesn't, as you admit.

Science can give us a good idea of the age of human skeletons when they died, I don't believe we've discovered anything that would indicate that lifespans have ever been longer than they are now.

But obviously science can't prove how long Adam lived for anymore than it can prove how long Gandalf lived for, they're fictional characters.

The Sumerian King List is evidence for nothing more than ancient myths so I suppose it's an apt piece of evidence for you to present. Do you believe that the Sumerian's 3600 gods are genuine?

 

[Kylie]

I would label that as the model of deistic creation, where God creates a primordial atom, then retreats into the background and lets nature do its thing.

I'm not sure what the evolution is in the video in the OP.

My guess is that it is what they call either "social Darwinism," or a form of "Lamarckism."

That's why I called this thread a "challenge."

You can't get an educatee to speak up and answer it.

Seven posts and it hasn't been answered yet.

It was answered in the second post, AV. It's NOT evolution!

 

[AV1611VET]

It was answered in the second post, AV. It's NOT evolution!

What kind of evoluton isn't it?

 

[[serious]]

What kind of evoluton isn't it?

Biological evolution

 

[Kylie]

What kind of evoluton isn't it?

It is not any kind of evolution.

What kind of evolution do you think it IS?

 

[AV1611VET]

What kind of evolution do you think it IS?

QV Post 7, please.

 

[Kylie]

QV Post 7, please.

Social Darwinism is not evolution. Lamarckian evolution does not exist. So, either way, you think it is something that does not exist.

Care to try again? Or is this another case of reality taking a hike?

 

[AV1611VET]

Social Darwinism is not evolution. Lamarckian evolution does not exist. So, either way, you think it is something that does not exist.

Care to try again? Or is this another case of reality taking a hike?

I take it you've never watched the show?

When that show came out, that was the prevailing theory.

I just don't know the name of said theory.

I know what the Bible refers to it as, but not science.

 

[Kylie]

I take it you've never watched the show?

When that show came out, that was the prevailing theory.

I just don't know the name of said theory.

I know what the Bible refers to it as, but not science.

I've never watched the movie? That's true, I've never seen it, as far as I know.

But then, I'm not so foolish as to think that movies MUST follow the laws of the regular universe.

AV, tell me...

Do you understand that things can happen in movies that can't actually happen in the real world?