Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2404 of 3694 (910780)
05-13-2023 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 2398 by GDR
05-12-2023 7:52 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
quote:
No I don't. I merely quote basic concepts as written by those who do understand it.
Except you never bother to understand your sources. Skim reading a Wikipedia page and getting even that wrong is not my idea of research or caring about the truth.
I know that you claim to have done more reading about the selfish gene concept but your actual posting record fits much better with just skimming the Wikipedia page. It’s been more than ten years and you still have problems with the basic concept.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2398 by GDR, posted 05-12-2023 7:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2421 by GDR, posted 05-29-2023 2:22 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2424 of 3694 (910966)
05-29-2023 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 2421 by GDR
05-29-2023 2:22 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
quote:
Give me a break. I have done more than skim wiki pages.
I go by what you write and the level of understanding you show. Form that, so far as I can tell, skimming a Wikipedia page is all you’ve done on the subject. If the only thing you quote is Wikipedia and you don’t even fully understand the quote - or the most basic facts - then what else am I to conclude? That you know better? That you’re lying ?
quote:
Yes, just like everyone else here I find quotes that are consistent with my conclusions.
Not like everyone else. Most of us regard quote mining as a bad thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2421 by GDR, posted 05-29-2023 2:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2425 by Phat, posted 05-29-2023 3:26 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 2439 by GDR, posted 06-10-2023 2:59 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2432 of 3694 (910994)
05-31-2023 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 2419 by GDR
05-29-2023 2:00 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
quote:
All of those points do not answer the issue of how they promote ourselves or our gene pool.
As you should have known ten years ago “promoting ourselves” is irrelevant. For the other you’ve already forgotten that helping the “us” group would have “promoted our gene pool” when we were living as hunter-gatherers. Indeed, the fourth still will help.
quote:
However, they evolve in contradiction to Darwinian principles of survival of the fittest or even survival of the gene pool.
Obviously that is untrue. You don’t even understand Darwin’s principle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2419 by GDR, posted 05-29-2023 2:00 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2433 of 3694 (910995)
05-31-2023 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2405 by GDR
05-15-2023 5:19 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
quote:
Once again, science of the gaps You have to come up with subjective scenarios to fit your beliefs
Once again a display of arrogance and hypocrisy. Surely considering other possibilities is the opposite of “God of the gaps” thinking - which only allows one answer and demands that it be accepted as fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2405 by GDR, posted 05-15-2023 5:19 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 2440 of 3694 (911114)
06-10-2023 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 2439 by GDR
06-10-2023 2:59 PM


Re: What's Important enough?
quote:
I use wiki as a source so as to try and stay clear of quoting people who have a biased view.
You fail to understand the criticism. It’s your misuse of Wikipedia as a source that is the issue. You only used it as a source for out of context quotes to try to prop up your position. You didn’t bother to understand it at all.
Not that that stops you quoting people who do have a biased view either. And you abuse them as sources too.
The problem - again - is that you don’t care about the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2439 by GDR, posted 06-10-2023 2:59 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2458 of 3694 (911233)
06-20-2023 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 2457 by candle2
06-20-2023 8:41 AM


Re: Curiousity Killed The Cat That Ate The Canary In A Quote Mine
You do like dubious old sources:
“There is little reason … to probe further through Macalister’s tortuous discussion of his excavation of the ‘High Place.’ It is impossible to glean any significant information from this mixture of fact (?) and fancy.”
William Dever, quoting himself at Bible Archaeology Society

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2457 by candle2, posted 06-20-2023 8:41 AM candle2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2462 of 3694 (911240)
06-20-2023 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 2461 by candle2
06-20-2023 12:31 PM


Re: Curiousity Killed The Cat That Ate The Canary In A Quote Mine
quote:
I would think that the term fool would better apply to
one who believes in evolution, even though there are no
transitional fossils to support this misconception.

Even Darwin realized that without transitional fossils his
theory would fall apart.
Yawn. Really, why do Creationists always think that lying is the answer? There are plenty of transitional fossils and palaeontologists keep finding more.
Like this one, published a couple of years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2461 by candle2, posted 06-20-2023 12:31 PM candle2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2465 by dwise1, posted 06-20-2023 2:12 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2467 of 3694 (911245)
06-20-2023 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2466 by Theodoric
06-20-2023 3:24 PM


Re: Curiousity Killed The Cat That Ate The Canary In A Quote Mine
Why bother? We know that Macalister made a complete mess of the excavation and his findings are worthless Message 2458

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2466 by Theodoric, posted 06-20-2023 3:24 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2472 by candle2, posted 06-21-2023 7:49 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 2476 by Theodoric, posted 06-21-2023 12:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2471 of 3694 (911251)
06-21-2023 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 2468 by candle2
06-20-2023 5:33 PM


Re: Curiousity Killed The Cat That Ate The Canary In A Quote Mine
quote:
Located on a collapsed wall was an inscription in red
and black ink. The inscription was written in the
Northwest Semitic Dialect.

The inscription read: Balaam Son of Beor, "seer of gods."

Numbers 22 through 24 talks about Balaam, the seer.
That is a story about a Balaam who might be the same as that written in the Bible Wikipedia. Assuming that it is the same it doesn’t establish anything more than the idea that Balaam was a legendary figure incorporated into the Bible. It does not establish the accuracy of the Biblical story at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2468 by candle2, posted 06-20-2023 5:33 PM candle2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2473 of 3694 (911254)
06-21-2023 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2472 by candle2
06-21-2023 7:49 AM


Re: Curiousity Killed The Cat That Ate The Canary In A Quote Mine
quote:
Paulk, you are right. He made a mess out of those who
deny the historical value of the Bible.
Oh, look a creationist is telling stupid lies again. What a surprise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2472 by candle2, posted 06-21-2023 7:49 AM candle2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2479 of 3694 (911260)
06-21-2023 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2476 by Theodoric
06-21-2023 12:34 PM


Re: Curiousity Killed The Cat That Ate The Canary In A Quote Mine
Have you noticed that candle2’s sources are either old, or hoaxes or both?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2476 by Theodoric, posted 06-21-2023 12:34 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2480 by Tangle, posted 06-21-2023 1:20 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 2481 by Theodoric, posted 06-21-2023 4:52 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2504 of 3694 (911325)
06-26-2023 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2503 by candle2
06-26-2023 8:34 AM


Re: United Church of God Teachings
quote:
If you can rebuke the Biblical teachings that I put, then
feel free to do so. They are Biblically solid.
That’s easy.
Look at Message 2478
quote:
when Satan took his demons and ascended into
heaven, he was prepared to fight against God in order to
get his way.
You claim that this took place between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, but the Bible never says so. Indeed, it’s mentioned in Revelation 12, which implies that it will be part of the End Times (especially v 12).
quote:
The solar system and most likely the entire universe was
damaged. Satan and his demons were forced back to
earth.
The Bible never says that, either. Indeed the Bible does not display much understanding of the Universe at all.
quote:
In the first chapter of Genesis we see that the earth is
covered with water and stygian darkness.
God begins to renew the face of the earth, readying it for
the creation of man.
Or, more likely it describes the chaos of the Primordial Ocean, before the work of creation has begun.
quote:
He did not renew the other planets and moons in our solar
system. They still carry the scars of that titanic war.
However, God did adjust the rotation of the Earth and
moon to each other as well as their rotation with the sun.
The Bible does not say any of this.
Message 2482
quote:
in verse 3 God said "Let there be light."He did not
create the sun on this day. It had been created sometime
in the past.

More likely the Sun is not created until the fourth day - regardless it is not set in the sky until then (Genesis 1 16-18)
quote:
The angelic war in the heavens had filled the earth's
atmosphere with debris.

On this day someone standing on the face of the earth
would have seen light trickle through. However, the light
would have been translucent because of the heavy water
vapor, much like on Venus today.
On day four God removed the cloud-cover from the
atmosphere, which allowed visual observation of the sun,
moon, stars, and other heavenly bodies.
This contradicts Genesis 1. As I point out above it does not say that the Sun is in the sky, but obscured by “debris” or “cloud cover” - which is never mentioned. It expressly says that the Sun is not put in the sky until the fourth day, and only then does it rule over the day.
quote:
The NKJ version begins verse 16 with "then." Then God
made suggests continuity of action.
Which implies that the Sun was not created until then. And that demonstrates that the idea is reasonable - although I do not rely on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2503 by candle2, posted 06-26-2023 8:34 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2505 by candle2, posted 06-27-2023 11:32 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 2509 by candle2, posted 06-27-2023 4:43 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 2507 of 3694 (911342)
06-27-2023 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 2505 by candle2
06-27-2023 11:32 AM


Re: United Church of God Teachings
I will start by noting that you do not answer a single point in the post that you are supposedly replying to. I’ll take that as a concession.
quote:
Paulk, do you know that evolutionists (especially
paleoanthropologists) are some of the biggest liars on
earth? I'm not kidding!

No, that’s creationists.,
quote:
Human evolution is a fact, they scream. Then they come
out with this idiotic tree that only the most gullible among
us would accept.
Says the most gullible among us.
Of course it is a fact, you just reject it because you swallow the lies of creationism
quote:
Scientists claim to have fragments of over 400
Australopithcines. However, all the fragments combined
fits on one table.
I’ve heard a version of this before, spread by creationists who are not bright enough to understand that he keep finding more hominin remains. Want to actually try supporting this claim, for once?
quote:
When a portion of Lucy's pelvis was found it was
flared out, much like that of an ape.

However, the pelvis was damaged; so, these great men
of integrity cut it into and then they glued it together again.
Not true. The first reconstruction of Lucy’s pelvis - not the way it was originaly found - looked ape-like but it was demonstrably incorrect. So they made a more correct reconstruction which is what you are objecting to.
quote:
There were no bones of the feet, but that did not
prevent them from giving it human feet.

Their reasoning is that a thousand miles away were ten
inch human footprints preserved in the same strata.

And since the strata was assigned an age of three-
and-a-half millions years, they could not have been
made by humans.

It never entered their misguided minds that their
dating technique was highly flawed. Or perhaps it did.
There is no notoriety in finding ape fossils.
Yes, it never occurred to them to believe creationist lies.
And they were right, as fossil evidence has shown Science News
quote:
Lucy has curved fingers designed for tree climbing. The
shape of the radius bone and the way it entered the
wrist allowed it to lock in place.
Lucy’s hands are no more present than her feet.
quote:
Lucy was an ape. Nothing but a knuckle-walker.
Lucy could walk upright. Her knee joints showed that from the very start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2505 by candle2, posted 06-27-2023 11:32 AM candle2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2510 of 3694 (911348)
06-27-2023 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 2509 by candle2
06-27-2023 4:43 PM


Re: United Church of God Teachings
quote:
Paulk, do you actually believe that the sun was created
on day one, and created again on day four?
I don’t believe the story at all, and I certainly don’t believe that it says that the sun was created twice. In so far as it says anything on the matter creation on day 4 fits best.
quote:
Isaiah states 45:18 that the earth was not created in
tohuw.

Yet, in Genesis 1:2 the earth is in tohuw.
Because that is the initial state before creation. Genesis 1:1 is a summary of what follows.
quote:
When exactly do you think the earth and the water on it
were created? It is a certainty that the earth was created
before day one.

If the earth were already there before day one, how can
one say that the sun was not already there, especially
with any degree of credibility?
You’re confusing what science says with what the story says. The story has a worldview greatly different from the modern view. In the story, the sun is just a light in the - solid - sky. Daylight is the light separated from the darkness, preceding the placement of the sun in the sky.
quote:
When Satan decided to exalt his throne into heaven,
and above the other angels of God, where exactly was
his throne at that time?
Isaiah 14 is not about Satan, it’s about the King of Babylon. And the King of Babylon had his throne in Babylon.
quote:
The truth is that God had placed Satan on earth's throne
sometime in the past, before Adam was created.
Where does it say that in the Bible?
quote:
The way I have laid this out should be simple enough
for anyone to understand. Why are you having so much
trouble with it?
Oh it’s giving me no trouble at all. The fantasies and misreadings of the Bible you are promoting aren’t a problem at all. That’s why I find it so easy to answer. And why you find it so difficult to answer my points - you can’t find anything in Revelation 12 that suggests that it occurs before Adam was created, can you ? Indeed it’s only a “short time” before the Millenium (see Revelation 12:12 and 20) and there are other clues to the contrary right there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2509 by candle2, posted 06-27-2023 4:43 PM candle2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2576 of 3694 (911577)
07-17-2023 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2574 by candle2
07-16-2023 7:30 PM


Re: United Church of God Teachings
quote:
The only agenda I have is to put God's truth out. I supply
Biblical support for what I say.
The first is obviously untrue. The second is laughably untrue.
Where - for instance - is the Biblical support for your claim that God’s activities on the fourth day amount to clearing the atmosphere of clouds and “debris” that completely obscured the sky? The Bible doesn’t say that - it doesn’t even mention that the sky was obscured?
Or for the Anglo-Israelite nonsense you posted? Are we to believe that the writings of J. H. Allen are the “Word of God”?
quote:
If only one person looks deeply into what I am stating then
I will have repaid what was done for me.
So you want people to know that you are ignorant, gullible and dishonest. Good news! I know all of that! As will anyone who “looks deeply” into your claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2574 by candle2, posted 07-16-2023 7:30 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2579 by candle2, posted 07-17-2023 1:47 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024