Why Evolution is True

[Dizredux]

Dizredux
Keep on mocking and ridiculing the Christians while encouraging the antichrist atheistis, if that's what makes you happy.

If you are talking about mocking you about you saying that natural selection, weather, earthquakes and volcanoes are random then I plead guilty. If you mean mocking your idea of atheistic creationism being taught in schools but cannot show any that do then yes, I am mocking that. These ideas are ridiculous enough that unless you show some evidence then I will probably continue mocking them.

Oh yes, the description, as I remember, of antichrist is anyone that does not believe in Christ in the way you insist on. You do realize that includes the majority of people in the world? Does that mean that all who do not fit into the narrow definition of Christian that you use are antichrist and are doomed to eternal punishment? Just curious.

Dizredux

 

[dad]

Sexism, how 1950s of you.

To refer to the sex is not sexism actually. Otherwise, man, we would all be in trouble. Relax. God made you a woman, accept it.

I could ask you to talk with something you actually know stuff about too every time you open your mouth about physics.

I only need to know enough to know more than the person I am talking to!! Hey, how hard is that?

But if the bible has such amazing prophecies as you claim, then surely you have at least 5 amazingly specific ones which have historical support beyond the bible which have been written first then probably fulfilled later.

You should do your own seeking. To even mouth such foolishness shows you have no idea what you are talking about and are infected with delirious denial.


I think the issue with belief may be somewhat what a person likes or loves. If we like what Jesus was and did, etc, then in my humble opinion, that is a step toward belief. If someone has a made up mind, and loves their sin more, then maybe God will not force them away from the desire of their heart. If this is all true or partially true even, that means that how a person views God's word depends on the person. A little bit like 'what we find depends on what we were looking for'


That is why I am not keen on trying to delve deeply into history and Scripture with folks unless they are sincere and not 'made up of mind'.


This forum and section is rife with the godless and many who basically seek to preach doubt and denial and godlessness.


I happen to know a bit about prophesies because they have always interested me. I know that they are true. This is not the place to convince you or others. People spend their lives studying that stuff, like history.


But, as off topic as it may be, how about this one..Mark. They date it around 66 to 70 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

In fact they acknowledge that the final book was based on earlier oral teachings, maybe an earlier proto book by Mark..etc etc.

"The book was probably written c.66–70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.[6] The author used a variety of oral sources, including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative, which he rewrote (scholars debate by how much) and connected with introductions and conclusions; possibly the first connected narrative was not the gospel we know but an earlier proto-Mark, which underwent one or more revisions before the modern version was produced.[7]"







If you claim this was written before the prophesies were made, how would you explain that the temple was destroyed not a stone left standing on another after this date?

 

[bhsmte]

did you not read what he said? And are you forgetting the person you are making that comment to is a Christian? Not siding with you doesn't make them not a Christian, do you think I side with every atheist out there?

With fundamentalists, selective reading skills are mandatory.

 

[justlookinla]

did you not read what he said? And are you forgetting the person you are making that comment to is a Christian? Not siding with you doesn't make them not a Christian, do you think I side with every atheist out there?

Right, I just find it interesting that much of his posting is void of criticism toward anyone but Christians. As a Christian, I find that kinda strange.

You probably don't side with every atheist out there, but are you generally supportive of Christian or atheist worldviews?

 

[PsychoSarah]

That prophecy is bunk, basically a prophecy based off of random stuff said elsewhere. In addition, prophecies which can purposely be fulfilled within reason by the people aware of them aren't exactly impressive. Or when people make a prophecy that a specific person shall perform the action, when that individual has motivations to do it independently anyways because it benefits them. All buildings crumble eventually, what of all the other temples and buildings left without a trace remaining? You act as if this sort of event is uncommon or special when it really isn't. In some cultures warriors and conquerors would go out of their way to destroy such buildings completely.

Sorry, I don't find the prophecy of a building being destroyed which is significant to a group of people often persecuted amazing.

Also, where is your outside source the building existed, and that it was truly destroyed as stated? If you are going to be the one claiming the bible is so accurate on prophecies, you sir are responsible for finding the information to support your own position, not me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Right, I just find it interesting that much of his posting is void of criticism toward anyone but Christians. As a Christian, I find that kinda strange.

You probably don't side with every atheist out there, but are you generally supportive of Christian or atheist worldviews?

World views are more philosophical than anything else, I don't view stuff such as evolution being a world view, so I don't really side more with atheists or theists on philosophical matters overmuch. Not that there is much consistency in the positions of said groups anyways, philosophy is more individualized.

Well, it is mostly Christians on this site, so statistically any criticism made by someone who doesn't favor people based on religion is going to be aimed more at Christians than anyone else.

 

[justlookinla]

If you are talking about mocking you about you saying that natural selection, weather, earthquakes and volcanoes are random then I plead guilty. If you mean mocking you idea of atheistic creationism being taught in schools but you cannot show any that do then yes, I am mocking that. The ideas are ridiculous enough that unless you show some evidence then I will probably continue mocking them.

I know. Mocking those Jesus Christ as creator worldviews and either silent or supportive of worldviews which deny Jesus Christ is creator seems to be your general behavior. As I said, it's your choice.

Oh yes, the description, as I remember, of antichrist is anyone that does not believe in Christ in the way you insist on.

See, now this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You're upset with scripture, with Christians, who dare to embrace scripture concerning antichrist. You're not upset with atheists who mock and deny Jesus Christ, but with Christians. The truth is, you've once again misrepresented what I've said, as is common with you. Let's use scripture, something you seem uncomfortable with using for whatever reason, to identify antichrist.

2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Mock that.

You do realize that includes the majority of people in the world? Does that mean that all who do not fit into the narrow definition of Christian that you use are antichrist and are doomed to eternal punishment? Just curious.

Dizredux

Yes. That's precisely what it means, and it's not my "narrow definition", it's scripture. They're "not of God".

Ridicule that.

 

[justlookinla]

That prophecy is bunk, basically a prophecy based off of random stuff said elsewhere. In addition, prophecies which can purposely be fulfilled within reason by the people aware of them aren't exactly impressive. Or when people make a prophecy that a specific person shall perform the action, when that individual has motivations to do it independently anyways because it benefits them. All buildings crumble eventually, what of all the other temples and buildings left without a trace remaining? You act as if this sort of event is uncommon or special when it really isn't. In some cultures warriors and conquerors would go out of their way to destroy such buildings completely.

Sorry, I don't find the prophecy of a building being destroyed which is significant to a group of people often persecuted amazing.

Also, where is your outside source the building existed, and that it was truly destroyed as stated? If you are going to be the one claiming the bible is so accurate on prophecies, you sir are responsible for finding the information to support your own position, not me.

You don't have a clue about prophetic interpretation. It's impossible for you though, you're an unbeliever commenting on things of which you have no understanding.

Any criticism from you concerning spiritual things are meaningless.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You don't have a clue about prophetic interpretation. It's impossible for you though, you're an unbeliever commenting on things of which you have no understanding.

Any criticism from you concerning spiritual things are meaningless.

"You disagree with me therefore you aren't worth paying attention to" isn't a valid argument.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

One does not necessarily have to agree with British Israelism and the Gap theory in order to be redeemed though, do they? While there may be implications for rejecting those viewpoints, salvation isn't one of them?

In other words, Christians can disagree on many viewpoints and still consider each other brothers and sisters in Christ?

Exactly.

 

[justlookinla]

World views are more philosophical than anything else, I don't view stuff such as evolution being a world view, so I don't really side more with atheists or theists on philosophical matters overmuch. Not that there is much consistency in the positions of said groups anyways, philosophy is more individualized.

Well, it is mostly Christians on this site, so statistically any criticism made by someone who doesn't favor people based on religion is going to be aimed more at Christians than anyone else.

The wonderment was the behavior of a Christian generally having no problems with the antichrist, but instead having criticisms for believers.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The wonderment was the behavior of a Christian generally having no problems with the antichrist, but instead having criticisms for believers.

Well, we are talking about evolution and the person in question is a supporter of evolution. How many atheists do you know who don't support evolutionary theory on this site? It is purely circumstance of the topic that makes the criticism aimed at Christians, who in this forum are going to be in the highest numbers for being creationism supporters.

Also, as far as I can tell the Antichrist isn't on here, so...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That prophecy is bunk, basically a prophecy based off of random stuff said elsewhere. In addition, prophecies which can purposely be fulfilled within reason by the people aware of them aren't exactly impressive. Or when people make a prophecy that a specific person shall perform the action, when that individual has motivations to do it independently anyways because it benefits them. All buildings crumble eventually, what of all the other temples and buildings left without a trace remaining? You act as if this sort of event is uncommon or special when it really isn't. In some cultures warriors and conquerors would go out of their way to destroy such buildings completely.

Sorry, I don't find the prophecy of a building being destroyed which is significant to a group of people often persecuted amazing.

Also, where is your outside source the building existed, and that it was truly destroyed as stated? If you are going to be the one claiming the bible is so accurate on prophecies, you sir are responsible for finding the information to support your own position, not me.

This prophecy is quite specific, referring not to all of the building stones but the outer white limestone blocks that provided the beautifully finished outer surface. Such stones were valuable and were taken by the Romans for use elsewhere. The common stones of the Wailing Wall are evidence of this. There was no value in tearing them down. Historically everything would have been razed to the ground and carted off, totally destroying the site. The disciples were showing off the grandeur of these finishing stones, not the common stones underneath. So the prophecy stands as written.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This prophecy is quite specific, referring not to all of the building stones but the outer white limestone blocks that provided the beautifully finished outer surface. Such stones were valuable and were taken by the Romans for use elsewhere. The common stones of the Wailing Wall are evidence of this. There was no value in tearing them down. Historically everything would have been razed to the ground and carted off, totally destroying the site. The disciples were showing off the grandeur of these finishing stones, not the common stones underneath. So the prophecy stands as written.

The value in tearing the non valuable stones comes at these points:

1. Crush the wills of the people you wish to conquer by destroying those buildings which are important to them. This is why historically religious buildings are often targeted, as well as government buildings.

2. If the stone is already there, use it to build your own temples etc for your culture while simultaneously destroying the conquered culture. Stone is heavy, so why waste the effort when there is plenty of good workable material all around you?

3. To destroy strongholds. Often stone buildings, be they temples, etc, also served to house soldiers and protect citizens during times of war.

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

If you are talking about mocking you about you saying that natural selection, weather, earthquakes and volcanoes are random then I plead guilty. If you mean mocking you idea of atheistic creationism being taught in schools but you cannot show any that do then yes, I am mocking that. The ideas are ridiculous enough that unless you show some evidence then I will probably continue mocking them.

Just

I know. Mocking those Jesus Christ as creator worldviews and either silent or supportive of worldviews which deny Jesus Christ is creator seems to be your general behavior. As I said, it's your choice.

Non sequitur. What does this have to do with what I said? Again either reading comprehension or misunderstanding for other reasons, few good.


I have made it clear that I am here to combat those Christians who feel that it is all right or even a good thing to be dishonest. "Lying for Christ" is an oft used description. I will usually let others tackle the more extreme atheists as that is not my task at least here. I will say that I have as little use for extreme and dishonest atheists as extreme dishonest fundamentalists. Since I feel Lying for Christ does more damage to Christianity than dishonest atheists I do not apologize for my priorities.

Diz

Oh yes, the description, as I remember, of antichrist is anyone that does not believe in Christ in the way you insist on.

Just

See, now this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. You're upset with scripture, with Christians, who dare to embrace scripture concerning antichrist. You're not upset with atheists who mock and deny Jesus Christ, but with Christians.

Again non sequitur. You have no idea what I am thinking and your response has little to do with what I was asking. I was simply asking for a clarification of your stance on a particular position. Again reading comprehension or something a little more serious.

The truth is, you've once again misrepresented what I've said, as is common with you.

How can I misrepresent when I am looking for clarification on what your believe? I stated my impression and gave you a chance to correct me. This is what responsible people do in a discussion.

Let's use scripture, something you seem uncomfortable with using for whatever reason, to identify antichrist.

2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Mock that.

Mock, no I was asking about your view on this. There are Christian Scholars who feel this was aimed at false teachers and not the general population. You have one view on this but others may differ.

Diz

You do realize that includes the majority of people in the world? Does that mean that all who do not fit into the narrow definition of Christian that you use are antichrist and are doomed to eternal punishment? Just curious.

Just

Yes. That's precisely what it means, and it's not my "narrow definition", it's scripture. They're "not of God".

As you wish but since others do not necessarily agree with you it means that it is more likely "your definition" Your interpretation of the Bible is not necessarily inerrant.

I might add that condemning most of humanity both past and present to eternal suffering is a rather bleak and bitter theology.

Just

Ridicule that.

No, I may not agree with you but this is clearly your religious belief so I accept it as that.

Dizredux

 

[dad]

That prophecy is bunk, basically a prophecy based off of random stuff said elsewhere.

False. Nothing random about the temple specifically being prophesied to be destroyed not a stone upon another left.

Your claim that it was written after the fact also falls by the wayside here as the dates don't support you there.

In addition, prophecies which can purposely be fulfilled within reason by the people aware of them aren't exactly impressive.

The temple took over 80 years to build. The leader of the armies apparently was in a frenzy to stop his men FROM destroying it! They apprently disobeyed him according to John MacArthur. Of course the Jews wou

ld never have wanted it destroyed so no one could have done as you again foolishly and falsely claim!

Or when people make a prophecy that a specific person shall perform the action, when that individual has motivations to do it independently anyways because it benefits them.

Utter nonsense. Prophesy any specific person at all you know will rise from the dead! See how you do! I don't care if it would benefit them, it is not going to happen. The bible did happen. Delirious denial will get you nowhere.

All buildings crumble eventually, what of all the other temples and buildings left without a trace remaining? You act as if this sort of event is uncommon or special when it really isn't. In some cultures warriors and conquerors would go out of their way to destroy such buildings completely.

You embarrass yourself here.

Sorry, I don't find the prophecy of a building being destroyed which is significant to a group of people often persecuted amazing.

The same people had been prophesied to rebuild that temple after a previous prophesied destruction! They did, and boy did they spend time and effort on it.

Also, where is your outside source the building existed,

Oh brother! You are embarrassing yourself.

Hopefully it is a learning experience for you.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, we are talking about evolution and the person in question is a supporter of evolution. How many atheists do you know who don't support evolutionary theory on this site? It is purely circumstance of the topic that makes the criticism aimed at Christians, who in this forum are going to be in the highest numbers for being creationism supporters.

Also, as far as I can tell the Antichrist isn't on here, so...

The last statement is a perfect example of your abject lack of understanding of scripture.

 

[dad]

This prophecy is quite specific, referring not to all of the building stones but the outer white limestone blocks that provided the beautifully finished outer surface. Such stones were valuable and were taken by the Romans for use elsewhere. The common stones of the Wailing Wall are evidence of this. There was no value in tearing them down.

They were NOT part of the temple, just retaining walls. All the temple stones were taken down.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

They were NOT part of the temple, just retaining walls. All the temple stones were taken down.

You are right.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The last statement is a perfect example of your abject lack of understanding of scripture.

Last I checked the antichrist was basically the devil's twisted version of Jesus, and thus might not have even been born yet.