The number one bugger for creationists: C

[aeroz19]

The one has nothing to do with the other.

There's no point in going any further. lol

 

[w81minit]

Bevets has borne false witness in this forum more times than the lot of us can count. Bevets maintains a webpage that is literally an encyclopedic cache of false witness. Bevets has long since used up his goodwill around here.
What do you mean? Did you not read it?

I was referring to the butched job I did on catching flies with honey.

Sometimes it seems pounding keys to the wee hours of the night causes us to think just off center. As for the previous post I really want to maintain civility.

I have said many times - assume ignorance, not pride where I am concerned. If I want to be proud, it will definitely come across the way I intend it.

 

[Sopharos]

I love science, I love mathematics, I just put God ahead of them both. I do not believe you can scientifically measure God, nor mathematically calculate his presence. He is that He is.

Not an aim of Science anyway. Irrelevant.

When Moses went to free the Isrealites from Egypt they put their science and wizardry against God. God won. God allowed Pharoh to have his heart hardened to the end that the first born among all of Egypt was slain, that all of his chariots and armies were utterly destroyed. It was their confidence in themselves and what they could see that made them proud. God chose that to demonstrate his power and authority.

AD 2004 calling w81minit. Where are you?

If we do not defend our faith, it will face persecution and attempted annihilation.

Look at history - Christians (in the past) made the best garden torches. Hitler killed jew and Christian alike.

AD 2004 calling w81minit again. Where are you?

Hilter (it was said) was an evolutionist.

Sure and? However, Hitler did not derive his brand of Fascism from Evolution, but from a French Aristrocrat named Arthur de Gobineau. Besides, Scientific Darwinism does not condone Social Darwinism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobineau

I am not comparing evolutionists here to Hitler. I am stating history for context where the debate of realativism is concerned and to support that where sin is called sin, the messenger suffers.

Still Irrelevant.

 

[aeroz19]

But not a lie that He tells Himself...
I read them, now it's your turn.
Read this:

Romans 1:20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

And this:

1 Corinthians 14:33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


What does this tell us?

1: God created everything, and we can learn about Him from His creation.
2: God's not out to trick us.

This doesn't fit well with a universe that is young but looks old, now does it?

Thank you, Nathan. I agree with this.

 

[Philosoft]

Nathan Poe, I respect, you - that is another story.
I will not tolerate your snipes and arrogance. I am trying to be civil and you seem to desire a war of words. Perhaps you should take your ball and go home. The real dangers in the forum are not that I ridicule your trite arrogance and demonstrate your mental poverty. The real danger is that I ignore you.

One more snipe and consider yourself on the permanent 'waiting for a response list'.

Lets be civil.

Are you really so intellectually divorced from the situation that you don't see the way you slander the theistic evolutionist? Do you think it "civil" to implicitly divide Christianity into levels of adherence to God's infallible word?

 

[Lonnie]

"

Originally Posted by: Lonnie Is God relevant or not irrelevant? included or excluded?



Neither. Just not taken into direct consideration when interpreting evidence. When it comes to interpreting Science, it's a whole different matter. Science itself is agnostic. It's process of interpretation is strictly agnostic in nature. However interpretations of Science can be agnostic, atheist, theistic, whatever.



Quote:Originally Posted by: LonnieMy position is that our Creator is relevant to creation events. Would you say that my position is right or wrong? How do you know?



Neither right nor wrong, just your opinion. As I am discussing this from a scientific point of view, I cannot go beyond what is observable."

Those QUOTES are NOT QUOTED FROM ME!!!(I will not mention who falsely quoted me though)

Also, as far as I know, the FIRST person to mention that God decieved people was notto in I think post #19 or #20(arikay on page one said God will/would not decieve/lie).(so quite saying that it was me, it was the post before mine that I responded too)

Well, why is it not scientific to think that that world was created 6,000+(or how ever many) years ago? With all the fossils in it, ect.

You cant really prove it wrong scientificly(or you refuse too).

 

[w81minit]

Whoa, not true, not true, falsehood alert. Hitler was a Christian, he was not a church goer but he never renounced his Catholic faith as far as I know and many speeches he refers to his belief in the Christian God. Heck even the SS regiments had chaplains assigned to them.

Hitler was also a jew. He killed all who sat in opposition. Guess who sat in opposition. True Christians with the moral fortitude to say no.

 

[nyjbarnes]

Am I the only one where this question is making no sense at all?

Considering your recent posts have required a complete lack of congnitive thought to process, I suppose I am not suprised docoding even simple english has posed a challenge for you.

This is step one, admitting you have a problem...soon, with enough counsel, you can move to step two.

 

[aeroz19]

But this leads to the problem that we are now seeing things that never existed. This means that God is deceiving us to believe that some stars that never existed did or that the stars we are seeing never actually looked like we see them now (basically, God is showing us a picture show of things that never happened an is still doing it).

You have to remember that we are talking about more than light. The pictures from the Hubble, in your answer, are just God's picture show and it is all false.

When Jesus cause the lame to walk, and the blind to see, did he do it according to scientific rules and principles, or is he the creator of the universe and therefore able to more than we understand. How as it that he fed the five thousnad with 12 remaining baskets on just a loaf and some fishes? I guess since that didn't follow what we believe as scientific principle these are truely just finctional embellishments created by a consiracy to moralize the world! CHtongueEEK

I am not trying to be fecitious. I am pointing out that the master of all creation can do as he pleases without the implication that he is deceiving us. Honestly that whole argument puts me off, because it is us defining God for him. Not very good thology. God doesn't care about science - He walked on water. He calmed the sea with a word. He healed the sick and saved the lost. It is us who are trying imperfectly to see what he has done. I mean - who is chasing who here?

Good thread. I have enjoyed it thusfar.

I can't allow that. Your response is without logic and doesn't even address the problem that was stated. But just in case it did, let me sum it up:

"But this leads to the problem that we are now seeing things that never existed"

"I am pointing out that the master of all creation can do as he pleases without the implication that he is deceiving us."

So, God can make the light to appear to show us things that never existed while not deceiving us?

My God is far more orderly and intelligent than that. I cannot accept your argument.

 

[Lonnie]

"So, God can make the light to appear to show us things that never existed while not deceiving us?

My God is far more orderly and intelligent than that. I cannot accept your argument."

My God has unlimited power, and people seem to get really confused about the simplest of things(even myself).

If you have read scripture, then you may have read a verse that compares us to sheep, and sheep(if you have ever shepard before you would know this) are very dumb/stupid/not smart/ect.

 

[w81minit]

There's no point in going any further. lol

Hmmm.....suits me.
Anyone up for parcheese?

 

[aeroz19]

Showing people visions of an exploding star that never existing would cause me to question this integrity.

They didn't understand this from the beginning, that is why this debate is still going on.

 

[Sopharos]

Those QUOTES are NOT QUOTED FROM ME!!!(I will not mention who falsely quoted me though)

Oh, right, sorry.

Also, as far as I know, the FIRST person to mention that God decieved people was notto in I think post #19 or #20(arikay on page one said God will/would not decieve/lie).(so quite saying that it was me, it was the post before mine that I responded too)

An idea he got directly from reading your post.

Well, why is it not scientific to think that that world was created 6,000+(or how ever many) years ago? With all the fossils in it, ect.

You cant really prove it wrong scientificly(or you refuse too).

Because magic is unprovable AND undisprovable. While sure, there is every possiblity that the Universe was created to look old, it is scientifically unprovable because it is 100% supernatural magic, which is not observable by Science. It is also annoyingly undisprovable, because of the same reason.

This is called an ad hoc hypothesis, which is not a valid argument. For more on what an ad hoc hypothesis is, see: http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html

 

[aeroz19]

Evolution is not the same as athesim.

True

Evolution is mythology that has been based on atheistic assumptions

No no no no no no noooooooooooo!!! How many times....

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!! lol

The primary assumption is that our Creator is irrelevant when studying creation.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!! NO, no, no, no, no!!!

 

[w81minit]

Not an aim of Science anyway. Irrelevant.



AD 2004 calling w81minit. Where are you?



AD 2004 calling w81minit again. Where are you?

snip



Still Irrelevant.

Yes - and this years music award goes to the copy and paste theme song written and performed by Sopharos!

You too can sing along - irrelevant, AD 2004 calling w81minit again. Where are you?
If you can't stomach the song, you can use them in the all new Sopharos 8 Ball.
Does Sopharos' post make any sense? Irrelevant!

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

 

[aeroz19]

God has chosen the simple to confound the wise.

Remember this from scripture:
Mark 4:12
so that 'Seeing they may see and not perceive, And hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them.' " Why are physicist's above mockery? We are so wise in our own eyes as Human beings. We don't stop and consider our ways.

I am sure this was told to those who challenged the Church's view that the Bible indicates geocentrism.

You can't take a verse and slap it on those who you think are challenging your interpretation of the Bible.

Maybe what we think the Bible is telling us is wrong, like with Geocentrism. Maybe we need to be more open minded and consider whether or not our current interpretations are correct.

 

[Jet Black]

My God has unlimited power, and people seem to get really confused about the simplest of things(even myself).

nobody has claimed that God cannot create the universe to look old. he could have created it last thursday. the problem is that if he did, that makes him a deciever.

If you have read scripture, then you may have read a verse that compares us to sheep, and sheep(if you have ever shepard before you would know this) are very dumb/stupid/not smart/ect.

interesting, so how do you know you are not the dumb/not smart one for thinking that God means you to interpret Genesis lietally?

 

[w81minit]

Are you really so intellectually divorced from the situation that you don't see the way you slander the theistic evolutionist? Do you think it "civil" to implicitly divide Christianity into levels of adherence to God's infallible word?

I applaud your philanthropy: an Athiest standing up for something he doesn't believe in. How clever a dodge is that?

 

[aeroz19]

Evolution is not the same as athesim. Evolution is mythology that has been based on atheistic assumptions.

Then that's ironic then, since Darwin was a Christian at the time of writing Origins

Excellent point, Sopharos.

 

[Sopharos]

Yes - and this years music award goes to the copy and paste theme song written and performed by Sopharos!

You too can sing along - irrelevant, AD 2004 calling w81minit again. Where are you?
If you can't stomach the song, you can use them in the all new Sopharos 8 Ball.
Does Sopharos' post make any sense? Irrelevant!

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Points:

1. You are once again contructing a strawman of what Science is about.
2. You are dwelling in the past, compairing present situations with some stuff from thousands of years ago. Welcome to the 21st century.
3. You're making mountains out of molehills. Just because Science found that literal interpretation of Genesis was not how life came to be in its present diversity does not mean Christianity is somehow going to be persecuted like the Jews during the holocaust and wiped out of existance.
4. Same as 2. Although it's a little closer to present time, it's still 60 years apart.
5. A philosophical concept with nothing to do with Science.