To all athiests out there: bring it on

[Live4Jesus]

I gave you the evidence above.

You only want to argue with me obviously. Just because you are unable to refute my evidence clearly and concisely don't come looking for fights because all you've got is your own 2 cents worth please.

Provide your own evidence Einstien. Make sure it's rock solid.

No answer for the fruit fly? No answer for viral or genetic mutations? No answer for the overabundance of cambrian fossil evidence? DNA encoding? No answer EVEN for simple little finch beaks? Admit it, it's especially easy with the Finch beaks, Darwin was definitely wrong there. And he bases so much of his theory on this. It's dead off center. Heckel lied with his drawings. He conjectured. CONJECTURED. Do you know the meaning of the word? And it was taught 150 yrs. I undertsand your dilemma, truley I do.

A good scientist will tell you that sometimes in order to move forward you sometimes have to let go of everything you have previously been taught. Why? Because man is not infallible. He makes mistakes. Problem is with evolution there is no other place to go except back to the theory of intelligent design and athiests and non-believers cannot bear the thought of that. So they persist in their deceit.

Are you going to tell me next that Darwin was correct in his theory concerning Finch beaks? Where is the evidence?

The moon is made of cheese I know.

Till then cherrio!

 

[lithium.]

Live4Jesus what evidence are you talking about you didn't post any evidence backing up what your talking about?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Live4Jesus
I gave you the evidence above.

You only want to argue with me obviously. Just because you are unable to refute my evidence clearly and concisesly don't come looking for fights because all you've got is your own 2 cents worth please.

Provide your own evidence Einstien. Make sure it's rock solid.

Till then cherrio!

Where did you provide evidence? All I see is rhetoric. If there is so much evidence in favor of biblical creation and against evolution, then surely it wouldn't be too dificult for you to humor me and provide me with the most important piece of evidence, in your opinion.

Now, if what you have already posted qualifies for evidence in your view then I shall easily refute it: "Scientists in Nepal have discovered that everything you have mention is a lie. You really need to pay attention to Nepalese science so you don't make that mistake again."

 

[Live4Jesus]

I do say you are lazy. I cannot read or comprehend for either of you I have pointed you in a couple directions.

To make the journey, you must move your body with your own legs.

Try the library. They usually have stacks of scientific journals on hand.

 

[lithium.]

Hmm... Would that be a copout?

 

[Live4Jesus]

here try this, I don't think I can psots a link because I haven't been here long enough... just add the http part to the front of this:
biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Chapters/Ch%2019/Fossil-Embryos/Time-Cambrian.html

There's lots more if you look. Try looking left for a while instead of right. If you only read socialist literature you will surely be a socialist... examine all sides objectively like a good scientist.

I get the impression you have made up your mind before you even began.

Somewhere i read that scientists did a carbon dating on a live penguin and it came up as 8000 yrs old, wish I could find that one...

 

[Live4Jesus]

Here's another page;

genesispark.org/genpark/explo/explo.htm

Problem with you guys is you disallow the intelligent design answer from the outset. So I guess none of us should expect a fair trial from you.

Anyone for 4 winged fruitflies? Finch beaks in temperate weather?

 

[Live4Jesus]

Here's a site written by a young man for kids, maybe it will be easier for you to understand:

angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/

or search 'Jesus, dinosaurs and more' on the web.

Still bros, you got to pull out your reference books and do the footnotes yourselves. No copouts now... I do realize evolution is an easy way out of an otherwise responsible destiny... you can choose to opt out God gave you free will.

It's funny you call me a cop-out but where is your evidence for my requests you have not provided a single shred...

Thanks for the pics though... yes that is the flagellum I meant, wish you all could get past theory into some hard evidence though. least I got my bible and no bones for Jesus yet...

Where is the evidence they ask?

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by Live4Jesus
Here's a site written by a young man for kids, maybe it will be easier for you to understand:

This is one you'd probably want to revise if you knew the background of the person you're talking to.  Of course that would be difficult because you'd haveto make the effort to read the tagline under his handle.

-brett

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Live4Jesus
Here's a site written by a young man for kids, maybe it will be easier for you to understand:

angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/

or search 'Jesus, dinosaurs and more' on the web.

Still bros, you got to pull out your reference books and do the footnotes yourselves. No copouts now... I do realize evolution is an easy way out of an otherwise responsible destiny... you can choose to opt out God gave you free will.

It's funny you call me a cop-out but where is your evidence for my requests you have not provided a single shred...

Thanks for the pics though... yes that is the flagellum I meant, wish you all could get past theory into some hard evidence though. least I got my bible and no bones for Jesus yet...

Where is the evidence they ask?

You have yet to post any evidence disproving evolution you have only posted crackpot information. IMO.

Evolution is the easy way out of what? GOD! You need to stop looking at evolution as atheism because it's not. And I don't need to show evidence for evolution you are the one trying to disprove it. RufusAtticus, and others have shown you evidence for evolution tonight.

You may have your bible, but so do people that believe in evolution. Like I said evolution doesn't equal atheism.

 

[chickenman]

live4jesus, you seem to be incredibly misinformed

please show us the evidence that is being suppressed

if you can't produce it then i'm afraid i'll have to file you under "conspiracy theorist wacko"

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
It was while I was in that class. I wasn't allowed to question, talk out or do anything to express my thoughts about the matter.

Yet you still don't believe in evolution. So, you obviously were not forced to believe it. All I see from this is evidence that you are free to choose your beliefs, regardless of social pressures.

Yes, I do, it states so as much by context of the text, unless you think Judism thinks God is a myth, which they don't. The text is to be read as literal until you see otherwise in context. In genesis you don't see this, thus it is a full literal passage.

Oh, will you drop this whole "context" argument. All you've done is go round and round with circles with this line of reasoning:

Q: How do you know Genesis is literal?
A: Because of the context.
Q: What do you mean, "because of the context"?
A: Because it's non-fiction.
Q: How do you know that?
A: Because of the context.

Etc, etc.

If you actually have something either within the text itself, or independent of the text, then present it. Until then, your basis for your interpretation is no better than mine.

IE you inserting YOUR THOUGHTS onto the text instead of letting it speak for itself. That's the first wrong step in translation and interpretation.

Uh-huh. So, I guess Middle Earth is a real place then.

I have no choice but to let my thoughts and outside experience influence how I interpret Genesis. I can't just arbitrarily dismiss the physical evidence for this planet's billion+ year history. Maybe you're comfortable doing that, but I'm not.

2. I thought it was nonliteral until I studied it thanks.

What made you change your mind?

 

[Outspoken]

"Yet you still don't believe in evolution."

Yup, but while I was in that class I was forced to accept it as true, unquestioningly. this is exactly what i was talking about.

"Oh, will you drop this whole "context" argument."

No, something is not circular reasoning, or wrong just because you don't like it Pete, sorry.

"then present it."

Read the book then ask yourself, according to the people that wrote this work, did this stuff really happen. the clear answer is yes. Its nonfiction.

"I have no choice but to let my thoughts and outside experience influence how I interpret Genesis."

that's called bias, and its wrong to let it interfear with biblical interpreation.

"What made you change your mind?"

the text itself.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Yup, but while I was in that class I was forced to accept it as true, unquestioningly. this is exactly what i was talking about.

Well, I don't enough about the details of what went on in your class to really discuss it, but the fact that you do not believe in evolution goes against the idea of people being "forced" to believe it. Show me someone being imprisoned or directly threatened for believing in evolution, then we'll talk.

Read the book then ask yourself, according to the people that wrote this work, did this stuff really happen. the clear answer is yes. Its nonfiction.

Well, hold on a sec. Something happening and something happening exactly the way it is described in the Bible are two different things (which is percisely what we are debating).

For example, did the universe have a beginning? Both the Bible and modern science would say "yes".

Did the Earth appear after the universe began? Again, both the Bible and modern science would say "yes".

Did the Sun and stars appear after the universe began? Once again, both the Bible and modern science would say "yes".

Did the Earth, Sun and stars all form in the time frame given by a literal reading of Genesis 1 (appearing about 48-72 hours after the universe began). Modern science would say "no".

But this doesn't suddenly make the Bible "fiction" in the sense that it could be completely make-believe. Rather, it suggests that Genesis 1 is figurative, not literal. Either that, or modern science is completely up-the-creek on the issue (but having examined both sides of the debate, I am inclined to believe the former).

that's called bias, and its wrong to let it interfear with biblical interpreation.

So what's my other option? Ignorance? How is that supposed to be better?

Btw, you have your own bias in accepting the text when you made the claim "did this stuff really happen. the clear answer is yes". You can only make that claim independant of the text, otherwise you have no way to verify it.

the text itself.

That's a bit vague. Care to be more specific?

 

[Outspoken]

"your class to really discuss it, but the fact that you do not believe in evolution goes against the idea of people being "forced" to believe it."

No, it doesn't, it goes to the very heart of the matter. I was forced to accept it, just like others are.

"Show me someone being imprisoned or directly threatened for believing in evolution, then we'll talk."

That wasn't my point, please go back and re-read my posts.

"Well, hold on a sec. Something happening and something happening exactly the way it is described in the Bible are two different things (which is percisely what we are debating)."

Again, not what we are discussing. We are talking about how we know its a literal book, ie nonfiction. Please don't switch topics and take my words out of context Pete.

"Rather, it suggests that Genesis 1 is figurative, not literal."

Nope, that directly contradicts the text, for there is NOTHING in the text to indicate it is not literal, nor have you ever shown me anything.

"How is that supposed to be better?"

Go into it letting the text speak for itself.

"You can only make that claim independant of the text, "

Red herring. We are talking about if the text is literal or not, please keep to the subject.

"Care to be more specific?"

Its not vague at all. The text wording, structure, context, etc shows us that it is literal.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Some unfinished business...

Outspoken: Its narrative history. It starts out with a literal statement. The openning context is pretty clear, and its literal.

Jerry: Does this, or does this not, apply to Isaiah 11:12??

Outspoken:Sure it does, but the context shows there are nonliteral statements in it. I have yet to see someone show me that in genesis.

Jerry: Could you possibly explain what context clues show you that there are nonliteral statements in it? I'd love to see that. Then we can compare & see if similar "clues" exist in Genesis 1.

Outspoken: Pick a passage.

Also...

Outspoken: No, I think its actually because anyone who does poke a hole into it is ostrosized (sp) from the science relam, its peer pressure at its finest. I've actually seen it in action.

Jerry: Can you give us one of these examples where you saw this "peer pressure" in action?

Outspoken: Jerry, just go out to a few scientists and just drop that you're starting to doubt..you'll find out for yourself.

Jumping to the present:

I think an example would be better. Since you claimed that scientists were "ostracized" by this peer pressure, that is the kind of example you need to provide to back up your claim. Getting me to go out and perform the experiment to see if I can get someone to "ostracize me" is
1) Not how it works: you made the claim, you provide the example, and
2) irrelevant. I'm not a scientist. I cannot be ostracized from the scientiic community.

I would still like to know why you claim Gen 1 is to be read literally but don't claim the same for Isaiah 11:12.

I pick the eleventh chapter of Isaiah. You show me the context clues that show some of that chapter is meant to be taken in a way other than literally, please. If you can do so, then GREAT! We might examine another verse or two. If not, then you will need another explanation for why a passage must be read literally, or you will need to treat Isaiah 11 literally, including the corners of the earth mentioned therein.

Going on to some comments that I never noticed you posting:

No no...they questioned the HOW , not the does it happen...

Your contention was that scientists were ostracized for poking holes in the theory. Questioning what is held to be the principle mechanism is certainly a case of poking holes, but never mind. I have a better example.

Kurt Wise not only questions how evolution happened, but questions and has questioned whether it did. Indeed, he contends it did not. He did so openly while at Harvard studying under none other than Stephen J. Gould. Was he ostracized for his belief, or was he awarded a PhD?

He was awarded a PhD, whereupon he did publish one or two papers in actual scientific journals (although he didn't have any creationist material he felt like submitting for peer review for some reason), then decided to go preach at a Bible College about 60 miles from my house.

He was awarded his doctorate, and his papers were published, despite his YEC views. If he had any atual evidence to submit to support creationism, then I'm sure he could have gotten it published too, given that he seemed to understand the methodology pretty darn well.

Sorry I lost track of this thread. I got engaged in another discussion, and I didn't see the activity on this one....

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Outspoken
Go into it letting the text speak for itself.

Fine, but I can do this for other books, too. Why can't I do this for LotR and treat Middle Earth as a real place?

The text wording, structure, context, etc shows us that it is literal.

And it show this how exactly?

 

[Jerry Smith]

live4jesus:

Thank you for the link to the TIME story:
http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Books/Chapters/Ch 19/Fossil-Embryos/Time-Cambrian.html

I didn't read the last few pages, but I clicked that link just for the heck of it. It makes good reading & has some good info for lay enthusiasts who are interested in earth's history of evolution.

 

[Outspoken]

"2) irrelevant. I'm not a scientist. I cannot be ostracized from the scientiic community"

okay, well I gave you an example of my entering into the "scientific" world.

"You show me the context clues that show some of that chapter is meant to be taken in a way other than literally, please. "

Lets look at the passage you mention, Ish. 11:12. first look at verse 10..can a man be a "root"? Nope, ahh figurative language..okay..will stand as a banner...is a man a banner? No..ahh..figuarative language..the Lord will reach out his hand..hmm...Does God have a "hand" nope..more figuartive language.. especially in this context. So we see the passage leading up to 12 seems to be figuartive language inbeded in a literal passage... So we can safely assume that the term "four quarters of the earth" is not a literal description based on the descriptions proceeding before it..This is just one context clue used...but for me its enough.

"If he had any atual evidence to submit to support creationism, then I'm sure he could have gotten it published too,"

there you go, this is not admissiable, this is heresy. It could very well be that he tried to publish some and wasn't allowed to. why don't you call the man and find out.

"Why can't I do this for LotR and treat Middle Earth as a real place?"

Because of context, its fiction. Pete, we went through this already keep up

 

[Jerry Smith]

okay, well I gave you an example of my entering into the "scientific" world.

You were trying to earn a degree in the sciences from a university, right? Now, if I remember from your earlier post, your complaint was that the teacher did not want to debate creationism during a class where his job was to instruct in the current state of the science. Now, the fact that he had no interest in debating you (after all, he is paid to instruct you, not to debate you), cannot be considered "ostracization". If, however, you learned the material and answered the questions on the test correctly, yet were denied a passing grade, then that would be a good example of you being "ostracized". Can you confirm that this is what happened to you?

On Isaiah - I will have to agree with you that the words "root" and "banner" are used figuratively there. We cannot conclude the same about "Hand", because there is no indication in the Bible that God doesn't have a "Hand" - He has "back parts" & "bowels" & if Gen 1 is to be taken literally, all the rest of the male human anatomy, so there is no reason to think "Hand" is not literal here.

Now, just so I can be sure, before analyzing Gen 1-2 for figurative content, is there any context clue in Matthew chapter 4 (including 4:8) that will show us this passage is not to be taken literally?

Where it concerns Kurt Wise, I will refrain from asking him if he was ostracized & forgot to tell anybody. All of the available evidence shows that he was treated fairly & given every opportunity despite his outspoken views.