The number one bugger for creationists: C

w81minit · Sep 8, 2004

Sopharos said:
Except Arikay's post which you replied to was not about Hitler at all. It was about Darwin. Darwin in that sense was a Theistic Evolutionist. You replied:

Which is suggesting that Christians who claim themselves to be Christians are not really Christians.

Shifting the goalposts. Arikay's post was about Darwin, not Hitler.

Good point. I was sure she was responding to the Hitler reference; however I am not above being incorrect. I have been typing and reading so fast a couple of posts must have ran together. No offense to TE's. Hitler (though he claimed to be Christian was clearly not one. TE's, it is not up to me to judge that - but I will say we should each examine ourselves daily where we stand, as it says (I think in Timothy) Work out your salvation .... meaning we need to continually match our words and actions with our savior's.

aeroz19 · Sep 8, 2004

w81minit said:
It has been refuted.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's been refuted? This: "1. God created the light at the beginning."
Ok. Next...

aeroz19 · Sep 8, 2004

w81minit said:
Please find something other than the Geocentrism crutch.

Sure, as soon as you address it.

Sopharos · Sep 8, 2004

w81minit said:
Good point. I was sure she was responding to the Hitler reference; however I am not above being incorrect. I have been typing and reading so fast a couple of posts must have ran together. No offense to TE's. Hitler (though he claimed to be Christian was clearly not one. TE's, it is not up to me to judge that - but I will say we should each examine ourselves daily where we stand, as it says (I think in Timothy) Work out your salvation .... meaning we need to continually match our words and actions with our savior's.

That's better. I was simply pointing out a fallacy. However, Evolution has nothing to do with Salvation either.

Mistermystery · Sep 8, 2004

Mistermystery said:
A bit simplistic numbers but I think you're pretty on top on this one.

One more thing: If God created the light *en route* that must mean that the explosion never happend! Why is God lieing to us by showing us things that are not there? See also this thread I made a while ago. While it many lacks fun math-equasions as yours has, it still makes the point across

Arikay · Sep 8, 2004

"You just refuse to believe that God would do what we say he did."

Unless you are jesus, maybe you are wrong.
Nah, I forget, creationists are infallible when it comes to reading the bible. (or so say most creationist groups).

w81minit said:
It has been refuted. You just refuse to believe that God would do what we say he did.
While I do not buy the argument that light had to move faster etc. I am saying God created - we are the beneficiaries. You want to take your scientific rules and bind them to God. I find that beyond reason.

w81minit · Sep 8, 2004

Sopharos said:
That's better. I was simply pointing out a fallacy. However, Evolution has nothing to do with Salvation either.

Bzzzzzzttt.... Awe mom, time for school already?

I have got to get some sleep.

Nice debate - May the fullness of our words never be so burdensome that we lack desire to retrieve them yet again from the dungheap to recycle them and pass them off as wisdom.

aeroz19 · Sep 8, 2004

bevets said:
Orthodox Christian doctrine maintains that the Bible is Reality and man is fallible.

Click to expand...

That's right; your interpretation of the Bible could be wrong, because you are fallible!

Click to expand...

My interpretation is fallible. Please explain why your interpretaton is better.

Because maybe mine is supported by science.

aeroz19 · Sep 8, 2004

nyjbarnes said:
I have nothing to fear.

Click to expand...

You will be surprised to find that over 50% of the atheists and agnostics here are x-Christians.

Click to expand...

Nothing to fear huh?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Whoooooooooo that was a good one! wow! Man, I'm still laughing.

w81minit · Sep 8, 2004

Arikay said:
"You just refuse to believe that God would do what we say he did."

Unless you are jesus, maybe you are wrong.
Nah, I forget, creationists are infallible when it comes to reading the bible. (or so say most creationist groups).

Don't assume on a work you have little knowledge of. I do not assume I understand science to the degree that TE's or AE's, but I know scripture, because it is the foundation. I would say that would lead me to be in a slightly more advantageous position for understanding his ways. It astounds me that you would prefer those that do not follow it's teachings to be on equal par in its exegesis as those that do. Your claim of what God might have done shouldn't come from some mystical feeling about which there is no basis for comparison. Instead it should come from careful consideration of the text left gleen of his ways. If God wants anything it is for us to know him. We wont find him in the fossil record. I argue it will be in the law, the prophets, and in Jesus teachings, and the word wich he gave us.
-JMHO

w81minit · Sep 8, 2004

aeroz19 said:
Because maybe mine is supported by science.

Yeah, Silly. Science trumps careful study of the bible.

aeroz19 · Sep 8, 2004

w81minit said:
I do fear. I fear that those who could otherwise be saved, are lost as result of believers not standing up for truth.

You haven't established that what you believe is true, other than "Well this is how I interpret it, and I am absolutely right, and need no proof to back it up!"

aeroz19 · Sep 8, 2004

w81minit said:
Yeah, Silly. Science trumps careful study of the bible.

No name calling.

So you are saying that a careful study of the Bible indicates YECism?

Philosoft · Sep 8, 2004

w81minit said:
Yeah, Silly. Science trumps careful study of the bible.

Your ego is showing again. I daresay, you can hardly claim a terribly "careful study of the Bible" if you can't even square it with what is, empirically, gob-smackingly apparent; the methods used by the various sciences are repeatable, reliable, and available to all who would deign to engage them. Ignorance is, ultimately, no excuse in this case.

w81minit · Sep 8, 2004

aeroz19 said:
You haven't established that what you believe is true, other than "Well this is how I interpret it, and I am absolutely right, and need no proof to back it up!"

Completely disengenuous, argumentative, and without real merit for learning. Snipe aside, I think if you read my posts you will see exactly where I'm coming from. Now, on the other hand, if you've decided to pick and choose what to read and respond to, it is no wonder why you are confused about what I speak.

That said if you want to know, just ask.

aeroz19 · Sep 8, 2004

Jet Black said:
your faith is that your interpretation of the bible is correct, and you will ignore any evidence to the contrary.

That's what I am trying to tell him...lol

w81minit · Sep 8, 2004

aeroz19 said:
No name calling.

So you are saying that a careful study of the Bible indicates YECism?

Your stand alone statement was that your interpretation was backed by science and therefore true. You rely on science to prove your faith./?

aeroz19 · Sep 8, 2004

w81minit said:
Completely disengenuous, argumentative, and without real merit for learning. Snipe aside, I think if you read my posts you will see exactly where I'm coming from. Now, on the other hand, if you've decided to pick and choose what to read and respond to, it is no wonder why you are confused about what I speak.

That said if you want to know, just ask.

Actually, I have read every single one of your posts and know exactly where you stand. In fact, I am still on page 18.

Arikay · Sep 8, 2004

What am I assuming?
Creationist groups claim to have pretty much perfect reading of the bible.

So I assume that you don't believe creationism to be valid science?

Tell me, who has a better understanding of Gods words, someone who reads the bible and interprets it themselves, or someone who uses Gods creation to guide them?

w81minit said:
Don't assume on a work you have little knowledge of. I do not assume I understand science to the degree that TE's or AE's, but I know scripture, because it is the foundation. I would say that would lead me to be in a slightly more advantageous position for understanding his ways. It astounds me that you would prefer those that do not follow it's teachings to be on equal par in its exegesis as those that do. Your claim of what God might have done shouldn't come from some mystical feeling about which there is no basis for comparison. Instead it should come from careful consideration of the text left gleen of his ways. If God wants anything it is for us to know him. We wont find him in the fossil record. I argue it will be in the law, the prophets, and in Jesus teachings, and the word wich he gave us.
-JMHO

aeroz19 · Sep 8, 2004

Jet Black said:
again deception. what is "mature"? why would trees be created with rings indicating that they are older than they are. would adam have been created with a scar on his leg from a childhood accident he never had? did adam have a naval? again the appearance of age argument is deceptive, you don't want a deceptive God do you?

Trees with rings. Another intellectual difficulty.

The number one bugger for creationists: C

Active Member

aeroz19

Guest

aeroz19

Guest

My big fat tongue in my plump pink cheek

Here's looking at you kid

HI

Active Member

aeroz19

Guest

aeroz19

Guest

Active Member

Active Member

aeroz19

Guest

aeroz19

Guest

Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related

Active Member

aeroz19

Guest

Active Member

aeroz19

Guest

HI

aeroz19

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency