Time For This Challenge Again

[AV1611VET]

Your second sentence, directly contradicts the first.

Either that, or you need a course in Amanuensis 101.

 

[AV1611VET]

How come that the criticism of a foundational theory of biology, always comes from fundamentalist religious people, of which the overwhelming majority has no credentials or qualifications at all concerning these subjects?

How much qualification do we need to believe the first angiosperms weren't grown, they came into existence fully mature?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You make statements that are just not true. You speak of people I refer to, and call them "non-scientists" when they actually are scientists.

Sorry man, but if you are going to state that there is a mentionworthy group of credible, active, publishing, working biologists, geneticists, etc... that don't accept evolution, I'm just going to call you ignorant, delusional or a liar.

It's fine if you are a creationists - you have a right to believe whatever you want.
But I don't see the point in simply denying reality...

The fact of the matter is that evolution is as good as universally accepted among scientific circles. The science is pretty much settled on that issue and I don't see why anyone would want to deny that - regardless of them being creationists or not.

You say "scripture is not a sword" when you obviously are not familiar with scripture at all. Scripture is not a sword made out of metal, but it refers to itself as a sword in such places as Ephesians 6:17 "...the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:".

I was talking in context of a point being made.

The understanding is plain to the one that has spiritual understanding, though unknown to the one that is spiritually ignorant (without spiritual understanding).
"Run Forrest, run!" Are we in grammar school, calling names? One doesn't have to keep debating someone that childishly wants to use such tactics to carry on their close minded crusade to put forth that which is just not true.

In my experience, creationists tend to confuse "closed mindedness" with "not being gullible".

It's not closed minded to accept the facts of reality.
It's also not closed minded to not accept the word of a non-biologists over the consensus of actual biologists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Either that, or you need a course in Amanuensis 101.

Men either wrote it or they didn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How much qualification do we need to believe the first angiosperms weren't grown, they came into existence fully mature?

I wasn't talking about "believing". I was talking about people without qualifications thinking they now better then all those with qualifications, concerning the field of expertise of the latter.

 

[AV1611VET]

Men either wrote it or they didn't.

Paradox:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Paradox resolution: Amaneunsis 101

 

[AV1611VET]

I wasn't talking about "believing". I was talking about people without qualifications thinking they now better then all those with qualifications, concerning the field of expertise of the latter.

Well they don't, in my opinion.

But this bears repeating:

A little child should be able to look a Ph.D. right in the eyes and tell him he's wrong.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Paradox:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Paradox resolution: Amaneunsis 101

Don't see what is so paradoxal about that.

Either humans wrote those books or they didn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well they don't, in my opinion.

But this bears repeating:

A little child should be able to look a Ph.D. right in the eyes and tell him he's wrong.

The child is certainly free to do so.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I note that this post does not include a link to a post where an atheist is supposedly trying to "disprove god", but it does include an implied repeat of the claim that that is what atheists are supposedly doing. In fact, the wording of "you guys" even implies that that is what all atheists on this site are doing. Worse even: that it is the only reason we atheists are here.

Any time you wish to actually support these claims....

So this isn't the reason you and other atheists visit this particular forum?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So this isn't the reason you and other atheists visit this particular forum?

No.
Neither is it something I waste time on.

But hey, you made the claim that (all) atheists do this AND that it is the only reason why they are (all) here.

Care to support those claims? Or are we about ready to admit that you were clearly wrong?

After all, if ALL atheists on this site do this and if it even is the ONLY reason they frequent this site.................. then why did I already have to ask 3 times now to actually demonstrate that monstrous claim with a single example? A single link to a single post where this is being done?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No.
Neither is it something I waste time on.

But hey, you made the claim that (all) atheists do this AND that it is the only reason why they are (all) here.

Care to support those claims? Or are we about ready to admit that you were clearly wrong?

After all, if ALL atheists on this site do this and if it even is the ONLY reason they frequent this site.................. then why did I already have to ask 3 times now to actually demonstrate that monstrous claim with a single example? A single link to a single post where this is being done?

Do you even read your own posts? Isn't your handle "DogmaHunter"? What "dogma" are you hunting? To me 'dogma hunting' means hunting down and destroying dogma. And if the topic is religion, God, or creationism, that is the target 'dogma'. Do I have it right?

 

[Greg Merrill]

Paradox:

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Paradox resolution: Amaneunsis 101

Great verses given here.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you even read your own posts? Isn't your handle "DogmaHunter"? What "dogma" are you hunting? To me 'dogma hunting' means hunting down and destroying dogma. And if the topic is religion, God, or creationism, that is the target 'dogma'. Do I have it right?

If your belief isnt dogma, you should be able to hold up, correct?

 

[Greg Merrill]

Sorry man, but if you are going to state that there is a mentionworthy group of credible, active, publishing, working biologists, geneticists, etc... that don't accept evolution, I'm just going to call you ignorant, delusional or a liar.

It's fine if you are a creationists - you have a right to believe whatever you want.
But I don't see the point in simply denying reality...

The fact of the matter is that evolution is as good as universally accepted among scientific circles. The science is pretty much settled on that issue and I don't see why anyone would want to deny that - regardless of them being creationists or not.




I was talking in context of a point being made.




In my experience, creationists tend to confuse "closed mindedness" with "not being gullible".

It's not closed minded to accept the facts of reality.
It's also not closed minded to not accept the word of a non-biologists over the consensus of actual biologists.

Regarding the credentials of scientists of I.C.R., they say the following regarding one of their newest scientists.
"Like the rest of ICR’s scientists, Dr. Clarey’s credentials are extensive. He received his Ph.D. in geology and hydrogeology from Western Michigan University in 1996 and has two master’s degrees in the geosciences. From 1984 to 1992, he worked for Chevron U.S.A., Inc., using seismic data to locate oil and gas prospects. He has published many papers on various aspects of the Rocky Mountains and has authored two college laboratory books.

 

[AV1611VET]

Great verses given here.

Thank you, brother!

 

[Greg Merrill]

Thank you, brother!

Much, much more thanks to you!!! Great job.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If your belief isnt dogma, you should be able to hold up, correct?

That's not the point.

 

[HitchSlap]

Science reinforces belief in creation as it reveals that we were indeed "fearfully and wonderfully" made. Psalm 139:14

Would this explain the fact that approximately 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, then?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Would this explain the fact that approximately 50% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions, then?

Automobiles are 'wonderfully' made too, but you can't put sand in the gas tank and expect them to run.