|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
candle2 writes: The enjoyment of God' creation is dependent uponobedience to Him. The very first example of this is found in Genesis 2:16-17. "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eaten thereof thou shalt surely die." So what does that mean to you? We live with in a universe where entropy is a fact of life and death. Yes we have a knowledge of good anbd evil which is another characteristic of this world. What is your justification for understanding this as if it is an account written the day after it occurred and written up in a newspaper? It is a mythology written to represent the ancient beliefs. I will agree that it was a relatively sophisticated mythology when read alongside other mythologies at the time.
candle2 writes: I'll assume then that you aren't going to be judged. Remember Paul telling us to judge not that we be not judged. Maybe we should let God decide how this jjudging business goes. The Biblical message is that He judges the heart.
The Apostle Peter in 2Peter 2:6 states that those who donot turn from sin will eventually fall under judgement. candle2 writes: God has judged many people and nations throughouthistory. He judged Sodom and Gomorrah. He also judged the entire world before He destroyed it with a flood. So you agree then that Yahweh actually committed genocide and ordered the Jews to do so on other occasions. Clearly then you worship a different deity than Jesus did. By using your understanding of the OT, those of us in the West should be intent on slaughtering everyone in Islamic nations. A few nukes would do the job quite nicely. Isn't that what your genocidal god would have us do?
candle2 writes: So what do you think that God considers sin? What do you think God's judgement looks like? Does someone who grows up in a home where he is loved and encouraged judged on the same basis by what he/she does as compared to someone who is kicked around and abused in foster homes?
God alone determines what sin is, and when to judge it.He has extreme antagonism against sin. candle2 writes: So then, He is only going to save those who subscribe to correct doctrine then, which is obviously the doctrine that you hold. I would suggest to you that people are saved because they have been given a job to do, aChrist like vocation. We pray that God's Kingdom come on Earth as in Heaven and we are charged with doing that by reflecting God's love into His creation.
God used the nation of Israel to show Him to the world.However, He is not during this present age trying to save all humans. Yes and Jesus is recognized as a King and he ruled by washing the disciples feet and telling them to reach out to even the Romans with love.
candle2 writes: The Amakakites were extremely wicked, and they hadbeen this way for centuries. They were sneaky, deceiving, and manipulative. They had attacked Israel the first time they saw them. The Amalakites harassed and abused the people of God. The Amalakites were an offense against the "line of promise," which was also an offense against God. So once again you tell us that you worship a genocidal deity who calls the followers that He loves to slaughter men, women children and infants. He says at one point show them no mercy. I guess he never heard about PTSD and what it would do to those who were called to bring his love to the world.
Why is it then that God didn't destroy the Nazis, Pol Pot and his followers Stalin etc? candle2 writes: God will raise all who lived down through the centuries,back to the time of Adam. Everyone who is not in the first resurrection will be in the second. Most of your belief in this comes from from Jesus' warning of what would happen if the Jews engaged the Romans militarily.
candle2 writes: GDR, I know all the books of both Testaments. I also knowwho wrote each. I am also aware of when they were written. Then why would you understand Leviticus in the same way that you would understand Matthew? Edited by GDR, . He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
...and could you ask who wrote the gospels 'cos the wold wants to know.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Especially if there are any royalties or commissions involved. I had family in the area back then.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Candle2, you repeatedly assert RM dating is unreliable without any evidence, and don’t address the contrary evidence that is put forward.
Toba volcano eruption dated at 74000 years ago is rated as the biggest eruption in about the last million years. It put a thick layer of ash on India. with human artefacts found above and also below. In Greenland ice cores annual layers can be counted to at least 80,000. A strong increase in volcanic products can be seen at 74 000 years ago, just where expected for Toba To me, this shows support for the validity of RMD. What does it show you? Around the world both on land and sea there are chains of old volcanoes that have been dated and found to have increasing dates from end to end consistent with the rate of movement of their tectonic plate.There is a chain up the East coast of Australia ranging from 6 to 33 million years over more than 2000 km. These are the unerupted plugs left when the volcano dies and the cone is eroded away. The increase in dates is consistent with the rate of movement of the Australian tectonic plate. Why should I not regard this as good support for RMD?Toba also shows humanity goes back further than 6,000 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pollux Member Posts: 303 Joined: |
Further to the above, a term often seen in recent geology articles is “high-precision U-Pb dating”.
Apparently those scientists who pay good money for dates that they are mostly going to throw away think they can fool more people by pretending greater accuracy!????
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Jessica H. Christ! What is wrong with you?
After I explained it to you in the topic, Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2, you still post those same stupid bullshit creationist lies? Are you incapable of learning anything? Or are you nothing but an unprincipled and unrepentant liar and a deceiver serving a Deceiver God? (that has been your consistent witness)
I believe this because of what the Bible itself states, not what flawed dating techniques show. First, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not care one bit what the Bible says, but rather in the extensive and highly detailed fairy tales that your religions tells you is what the Bible says, but which do not exist in the Bible. Such a high degree of detail in maunderings about the supernatural is a sure sign of it being total bullshit, just as high degrees of complexity in Life is a sure sign that it had evolved. Second, your references to "flaws in dating techniques" are nothing but bullshit creationist lies. They are grossly simplistic nonsense which completely ignore the actual techniques used in dating methods with some extra lies thrown in. Granted, you're too stupid to know any better (which is why they feed those lies to you bottom-feeding creationists who would swallow a sea-camel whole while straining at the smallest of actual facts -- that's a reference from the Gospels which I'm sure you will not recognize; unlike you, we have read the Bible). Instead of rotting your brain (or rather what little is left of it) with creationist lies, learn the science yourself! You can start by taking one creationist claim (especially one that claims to use a scientific source) and verify it by looking up that source to see what it actually says and compare that to how the creationist had lied about that source. Also research into the actual techniques that science uses, again comparing that to the lies creationists tell about it. All creationists are liars and dishonest. Well, almost all. In four decades, I can only remember meeting one creationist who was honest. On CompuServe (effectively the Internet at the time), Merle argued for creationism, but he would do something that no other creationist would: he would go to the university library and do actual research to support his arguments and to check out the counter-claims. Within a year, he was arguing against those same creationist arguments. The danger for a creationist who seeks the Truth is that he will end up learning that the Truth does not lie in creationism, quite the opposite. So you are trapped in a cycle of willful ignorance and willful stupidity as the only way you can sustain the creationist lies upon which you have made your religion absolutely dependent. And what "true religion" has to depend solely on lies?
I do not know how old the earth is. There is the possibility that it is only several decades older than the renewing account in Genesis. It could be much older than that. It is indeed so much older than that. And earth and life have had a much much longer histories than ever dreamed of in your folklore. You just cannot allow yourself to realize that, so you have to discredit that fact in any way you can, including by lying. Just as you have just lied about dating methods. One who actually believed in Creation would see the facts of reality as a guide to understanding the Creation and hence the Creator (the role of science for actual believers in Creation). I have called them "actual creationists" in order to differentiate them from you fake creationists (AKA, just plain "creationists") who instead believe that the Creation, AKA reality, instead disproves the Creator -- in case that wasn't clear, when we refer to creationists and creationism we refer to you fake creationists and your fake creationism. The evidence supports reality, so since you creationists are trying to disprove reality then the evidence only does not support your cause but it also disproves it. Therefore, all you have left at your disposal is to lie about the evidence. Just as you have just lied about dating methods. The next reply will deal with those lies in more detail. But first, do please answer this question which I repost ... again!
If any part of your Man-made theology, created by fallible humans, is found to be wrong (which is inevitable), then what would you conclude?
Your fake creationism teaches you that your faith and even God depend on that creationism, such that if the earth is indeed found to be older than 10,000 years, "then Scripture would have no meaning" (John Morris of the ICR). But is that true? Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
... { again with the stupid bullshit creationist lies } ... Again, why are you still posting those same old many-time-over-refuted stupid bullshit creationist lies when you know better? Did you really learn nothing at all when I explained it to you in the topic, Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2? Are you incapable of learning anything? Or are you nothing but an unprincipled and unrepentant liar and a deceiver serving a Deceiver God? (that has been your consistent witness) OK, let's go through a few of them yet again.
One such dating technique is RadioCarbon Dating. With RCD the main issue lies with assumptions. You've tried this bullshit before. The "assumptions" that you "cite" have proven to be nonsensical lies. But you refuse to learn, so you just keep on repeating the same old lies. What is wrong with you?
Testers assume to know the composition of parent and daughter atom at the beginning, when the rocks formed. What the fuck are you talking about? First, in what way does the daughter atoms have anything at all to do with radiocarbon dating? The answer is absolutely nothing! What is the daughter of C-14 decay? Nitrogen! When does the radiocarbon dating method count nitrogen atoms? NEVER! Radiocarbon dating measures the ratio of C-14 to C-12; the amount of the daughter element, nitrogen, plays absolutely no part. You fucking idiot! You had claimed to know all about radiocarbon dating, but you don't know that? You told us that you know the subject when you actually know nothing about it, you lying piece of shit! Second, in other radiometric methods, it's not the daughter element that could play a role, but rather the daughter isotope. As I explained to you in Message 8:
dwise1 writes: Apologetics Press: This is an example of a typical creationist mistake in which they make ignorant generalizations which makes them lose track of vital details that are very important. Well ... it's not a question of "daughter elements", but rather daughter isotopes. So the question isn't just about a "daughter element", but rather different isotopes of the daughter element. For example, that quote from Apologetics Press named lead as the "daughter element". Lead has many isotopes, tens of them (List of isotopes of Lead) ranging from Pb-178 to Pb-218. And as we established on the previous page, Message 7, each isotope has a different mass so we are able to tell one isotope from another. Therefore, we can only count the radiogenic isotope which is part of the parent element's decay chain and disregard the non-radiogenic isotopes. But let's look at that hourglass "analogy" that you offer and which is complete and utter nonsense as I will demonstrate.
In an hourglass it is possible to know how long it takes all the sand (red atoms) in the upper bowl to empty into the bottom bowl (green sand). However, no one was present to confirm the amount ofgreen atoms present in the rocks when they were formed. They assume that all daughter atoms (green) that aremeasured in a rock today must have been due to radioactive decay of the parent atoms (red). WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? That makes absolutely no sense at all, let alone have anything at all to do with radiometric dating! When all the red sand in the upper bowl has emptied into the lower bowl and mixed with the green sand, YOU WILL STILL HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF RED AND GREEN AS YOU HAD STARTED WITH! Idiot! Instead, lose the hourglass (it's useless) and replace it with a single bowl into which you pour the initial quantities of red and green sand. Then over time, the red sand will decay into its daughter isotope, which is yellow (the addition of red light and green light). Then to figure out how long it took, you use the ratio of red to yellow -- the green sand is not involved at all. As I quoted to you in Message 8 Isochron Dating, by Chris Stassen (1994-1998) on Talk Origins Archive (short excerpt copied here). AOBTW, Stassen starts out reviewing the simplistic model that creationists never get past and addresses all of their "concerns about assumptions", so do go back and re-read that Message 8:
dwise1 writes: Stassen follows with the isochron method, which starts with:
quote: Taq extended me in his Message 9 the courtesy of posting the graphics that I could only describe. So we see that the non-radiogenic daughter isotope is taken into account, so your fake "concern about an assumption" is without basis nor merit. Furthermore, the graph is plotted with ratios taken from multiple crystals, such that those points will end up on a straight line whose slope represents the age.
If there is no problem. If they do not fall on a straight line, then there's a problem with the samples and the result (well, no straight line therefore no slope therefore no date) is invalid and needs to be discarded. So, no blindly followed assumptions, because science does not work that way. Rather, an example of an endeavor which does blindly follow assumptions and cannot and will not try to test and verify results would be religion. As should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers (an engineering expression).
They have no way of knowing it the atoms were affected by contamination. There were no observers who monitored the rocks through the years. Contamination could occur due to ground water,collection (pools) of water, or by the atmosphere. It is known that certain atoms, such as uranium, movein and out of water easily. So what? Of course we need to prevent contamination, but not by what you are describing. As described to me, isochrons are not used on the rock matrix, but rather on crystals. Molecules and atoms inside a crystal are locked in place. And to my knowledge, water does not tend to flow freely through crystals. So, yet again, what the hell are you talking about?
In 1996, lava from Mt. St. Helen, which erupted in 1986 yielded ages of from 350,000 years to 2.8 million years. What was observed to have happened did not matchusing the potassium-Argon method. Yes, but so what? As any geologist can tell you, you're going to get those kinds of result from an volcanic eruption due to the abundant presence of xenoliths:
quote: You see, in order to "reset the clock" of a rock, it must be completely melted. The crystals of the former rock must completely melt down so that the magma can completely mix, and then as that melt solidifies, new crystals will form with their ratios of isotopes and the clock starts running again. Obviously (even to you) if magma contains older rocks which have not melted, then those older rocks' "clocks" will still be set to when they last formed out of a melt however many thousands or millions of years ago that was. Therefore the "bad ages" you complain about were the ages of the xenoliths, not of an new igneous rock. The geologist taking samples would need to identify and ignore the xenoliths, restricting his sample taking to the rocks that he wants to date. A creationist with geology training (up to and including a PhD Geology) would do the exact opposite. A normal geologist wants to get the actual age of the samples, whereas the creationist wants to "expose" the dating method as being "flawed", so he wants to get a false age. Geologists have tested the methods extensively in order to learn what could go wrong and how to detect when it does. You want to boast that creationists know about serious problems with the methods that the scientists are blind to. Nope! Geologists are well aware of the problems and how to detect them and deal with them. And how did they find out? From creationists? Hell no! From extensive research and testing performed by geologists. All creationists have done is to use that research for their own dishonest purposes (eg, spreading their deception). A geologist would know what samples would give bad results and so avoids them, but a creationist would seek out samples that would give bad results and collect those samples and submit them. Dating methods are not reliable. No, they are very reliable, but only if you perform the procedure correctly. If you screw up the procedure, then it won't work, just as it is for every other procedure out there. But creationists go another step by screwing up the procedure on purpose. They will do such things as collect bad samples meant to give bad results or submit samples for testing with a method that is wrong for them (eg, submitting a dinosaur fossil for C-14 testing (including forgetting to mention the shellac on that museum piece) ).
Diamonds taken from Zaire yielded an age of six billion years. They were older than the supposedly four billion years assigned to the earth itself. OK, WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE? Otherwise, you're just pulling more lies out of your ass. We need to see what the source actually says, even if it is creationist (and hence lying). Hopefully, that creationist will cite a non-creationist source, even more hopefully a scientific source. Then when given a scientific source, we can see what it actually says. So what is your source? Edited by dwise1, : Typo in Line 3: [till[/i] post -> still posting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
GDR, I don't have that much free time all at once in
which to reply to you entire post; I will have to do it a little at at time. Let's read Matthew 7: 1-5 when referring to what Paul saidabout judging. 1. "Judge not that you be not judged." 2. "For with what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged:and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." 3. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother'seye, but considered not the beam that is in thine own eye?" 4. "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, let me pull out themote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" 5. "Thou hypocrite, first section out the beam out of thy owneye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thybrother's eye." Thou shall not judge is usually stated when someone whois violating God's laws is confronted by another. It shows a poor understanding of scripture. One thing is certain: we are never to judge another'sbehavior in a condemning manner. We cannot looks at another person's heart the way God can. One need not judge another's motive, but there is nojudging when it comes to sin. God spells it out for us. We can see when a brother in faith is sinning agaist God'slaws and Commandments. And, it is up to his brothers in Christ to speak with himabout it. Everyone had been guilty of sinning. Notice carefully what Matthew stated. First cast thebeam out of thine own eye: AND THEN SHALT THOU SEE CLEARLY TO CAST OUT THE MOTE OUT OF THY BROTHER'S EYE. God does not command us to not confront our brothers.In fact, he wants up to do so. To admonish each other and to build each other up. But, if we do this without confronting our own sins andweaknesses, we are then hypocrites. One must guard against taking a text out of context. It is also wise to learn everything the Bible states about acertain subject. Isaiah 28;9-10 "Whom shall He teach knowledge? Andwhom shall He make to understand doctrine?..." "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept;line upon line, line upon line, here a little and there a little."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
... {typical creationist flood blather} ... candle2, it's just a story! It certainly looks like the Genesis account came from Sumerian myths and was absorbed into oral tradition shortly before it finally started getting written down. We are very familiar with how oral tradition works, so we know that it can change within a few generations; eg, the Romantic movement of the 19th Century believed that folk tales went back for many centuries (part of the reason linguists like the Brothers Grimm collected them) whereas in reality they typically only went back a few generations. In addition, new details or entire stories could creep in or get dropped within a single generation in response to new information (eg, the "completely isolated" tribe with a myth about the star Sirius had changed the myth adding a companion to Sirius in response to modern news that had leaked in of the discovery of the white dwarf, Sirius B, visible only by telescope). Your (pl) fantasy of the Genesis oral tradition extending back for millennia completely unchanged in all its minute details requires an enormous belief in human infallibility that is just too crazy to accept. It is ironic that fundamentalists will preach that human efforts fail because we are so fallible and yet their beliefs in biblical inerrancy require belief in human infallibility.
It's just a story! Why do all races, groups, and nations have legends of a great flood? Because large numbers of humans traditionally live in the low lands near the sea shore, areas which were affected by the actual world-wide flood which we are still in the midst of: the rising sea level which has flooded the low lands. It's hard to miss something like that as the encroaching sea swallows up your settlements and entire valleys. During the ice ages, a lot of the oceans' water was locked in the ice caps, making sea level hundreds of feet lower. During that time, what's now shallow seas (eg, the Bering Strait, Persian Gulf, Indonesia, Australia/Papua-New Guinea, were dry land. But when an ice age ended, the ice caps would melt and the sea level would rise, such that the lowlands would become flooded and high land within those lowlands would become islands (eg, Indonesia). Refer to the Wallace Line which forms a boundary between Asian and Australian animals and which corresponds to deep water that had formed a sea barrier to animal migration during an ice age. The last ice age, the Wisconsinan, ended about 11,000 to 17,000 years ago and the ice caps started to melt causing the sea level to start to rise. Since then, sea level has risen about 200 feet, driving millions of people out of their sea-side and lowland homes, so of course that flooding would be part of nearly every people's lore and the subject of flood stories. Periodic flooding in Mesopotamia was nothing compared to the massive and permanent flooding of the Persian Gulf. And, as I said, the actual flood never ended, but rather it is continuing and worsening due to rising temperatures causing more ice caps to melt. Glaciers are disappearing as they melt away. Arctic ice is disappearing, as are the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. When the Antarctic ice cap melts completely, sea level will rise another 150 feet. Frankly, I would be very surprised if there weren't many flood stories around the world, the Sumerian story and its derivatives being just a few of many. So what's your point?
There is a graveyard of fossils that extend from Canada to Mexico including 14 states. This covers an area of 1800 miles by 1000 miles. Buried in this gigantic death bed are millions of fossils, including those of dinosaurs; over 400 species of mammals; and 120 species of modern birds. The graveyard also contains the fossils of both salt- water and fresh-water creatures. Bird fossils include owls, penguins, loons, parrots, ducks comorants, albatross, and sandpiper. Oftentimes bird fossils are found below dinosaur fossils. These fossils are buried deeply beneath ash, Sandstone, etc... You're again just flapping your gums and waving your hands. That area was a large inland sea with a long and very complex history. Learn something about that history. HINT: you will never learn it from creationists, who instead will only lie to you. At the very least, get your information about science from science, not from creationists who are avowed enemies of science. A place to start would be the Wikipedia article, Geological history of North America (my emphasis added via bolding):
quote: Just a starting point for your education.
Only a global flood would account for this. Not only can no single event account for that, but the geological evidence contradicts the notion of your "global flood". In my article on geology, GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF AN ANCIENT EARTH, that I had written and posted on CompuServe in Feb 1990, I told the story of creationist geologists who suffered crises of faith from being faced with rock-hard geological facts that creationists had taught them did not exist and could not exist "for Scripture to have any meaning." Their experience made me realize how dangerous creationism is to believers' faith and that creationism is a very strong contributor to the growth and spread of atheism. That story follows. It had started when I had mentioned Glenn R. Morton, a practicing petroleum geologist and a former YEC (the end of his being a YEC followed the events of this quote):
quote: I continued:
quote: And so on. Glenn R. Morton went on to create a site in which he examined geological evidence and explained how it disproves your Flood. He also included a number of testimonials from former creationists who had very nearly suffered "spiritual death" at the hands of creationism. That includes Morton's own testimonials of how creationism had driven him to the verge of atheism. Much later, Morton took his site down because he feared that atheists would use it to attack Christianity (far from it!). However, much of his site was preserved on other sites. Here is my own writeup with links on my links page:
quote: Share and enjoy!
Some evolutionists assert that this was the result of a large asteroid hitting the Yucatan Peninsula 65,000,000 million years ago. Common sense tells anyone that the asteroid could not have been the cause of this massive graveyard. You are stuck in the very mistaken idea of all those complex geological formation having been formed in a single event by a single cause. Common sense tells anyone that complex geology could not have been formed by any single event, but rather it was formed by a long history of multiple processes acting over very long periods of time. And you still have not answered the simple direct question: What the hell is an "evolutionist"? Sadly, you cannot answer that question because you do not know the answer. You have absolutely no clue! No creationist does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I'll just answer this then and wait for your answer to the rest of my post.
candle2 writes: One thing is certain: we are never to judge another'sbehavior in a condemning manner. We cannot looks at another person's heart the way God can. ..and the later you say this.
candle2 writes: We can see when a brother in faith is sinning agaist God'slaws and Commandments. And, it is up to his brothers in Christ to speak with him about it. Everyone had been guilty of sinning. Your contradict yourself in your own post. You make yourself the arbiter of the sin in other people's lives. Further than that you judge who is going to be right with God in the next life and who isn't. This has been a major problem in so called fundamentalism for years. It is all about what happens to us in the next life. Actually the Biblical message is that we are to be about reflecting God's love into His creation in this life and leave what happens in the next life up to God without trying to pre-judge anyone.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
GDR, the Nazis, Pol Pot, Stalin were in power for years
not centuries. The Amalekites and Amorites were continually evil forcenturies. Modern Israel (GB and the USA) are now as evil as anynation that has ever existed. We murder our own babies by the millions. We insist thatmen can become women and that women can become men. Many have lost their jobs simply for misgendering someone. Both Obama and Biden bathed the White House in therainbow colors of LGBT. Biden even raised the homosexual flag to the same heightas the American flag. This rainbow flag was centered between two American flags. Recently Biden invited transgendered Dylan Mulvaney tomeet with him at the White House. Dylan has severe mental issues. In one commerical hedressed and acted as though he was a six year old girl. Who in their right mind believes this behavior deserves an invite to the White House? Young girls are having their breasts hacked off, and youngboys are being castrated. They are being pumped full of hormones from the opposite sex. These surgeries are irreversible. The government is behindthis insane madness. Companies and corporations are forced to go woke orscore low on the ESG score. Their ESG scores are more important to them than their customers are. I could go on for days about how sick our society hasbecome. We are actually more depraved than were the Amorites; the Amalekites; and, the people's of Sodom and Gomorrah. We have reached a point to where God will soon intervene.I am not concerned about myself; perfect love for God eliminates fear. But my heart will hurt for others. But understand this: God judges and decides, not me oryou or anyone else. I have full faith and trust in His judgements. If you don't, you would do well ro readjust your relationshipwith Him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Dwise, everything you post is meaningless.
Everything that evolutionists accept is based entirely on"blind chance." "Chance alone Is at the source of every innovation, of allcreation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution." Monod, J 1971, Chance and Necessity, pp. 112-113. Julian Huxley wrote: "Nowhere in all its vast extent is thereany trace of purpose, or even prospective significance. It is impelled from behind by blind physical forces, a gigantic and chaotic jazz dance of particles and radiation...in which the overall tendency we have so far been able to detect is that summarized by the second law of thermodynamics- the tendency to run down." Huxley, J. 1953, Evolution in Action, pp. 11-12. The Bible states that the universe is running down. It iswaiting for the sons of God to restore it. Blind faith is not faith at all. It is credulity. A credulousindividual is willing to believe without any evidence. Without even the slightest hint of evidence, a credulous individual will believe. Chance is the absence of any know reason why an eventshould turn out one way rather than another. Design is to plan or fashion artistically or skillfully. Tointend for a definite purpose (such as the eyes, ears, heart, etc...). To form or conceive in the mind. Many evolutionists, sych as Dawkins, accept that humans,the earth, and the universe have an appearance of design, but their credulous mentality trusts more in blind chance. Blind chance is not science. In fact, it is the opposite ofscience. The probability of a single protein forming by chance is10 to the 64 power. One smaller than normal molecule made from 150 aminoacids aligned to ensure a folded chain on ancient earth was 1 chance in 10 to the 164th power. Anyone who believes that this actually happened is inneed if psychological help. The placenta is one cell. All blood of the mother goesthrough the placenta every ten minutes. The baby makes its own blood inside the placenta, but itneeds iron. And the only source is the mother's. But iron cannot pass through the placenta barrier on its own. One protein of 100,000 different proteins in our body(transferrin) binds to the mother's blood and carries it across the placenta barrier. The chance of the right protein binding with mother'sblood is incalculable. And only the most credulous of humans would accept that the right protein from 100,000 happened by chance on the first try.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Dwise, hemoglobin is a protein in red blood cells that
carry oxygen. Hemoglobin contains an arrangement of 539 aminoacids. Only five combinations are known to function in humans. The letters A through T represents the amino acids. Thetotal combinations of hemoglobin's amino acids is 4x10 to 619 power. To accept that one of the 5 right combination occurred byblind chance reeks of ignorance. To accept that this occurred by chance undermines thestatistical foundation of science. 80 zeroes is the estimated number of atoms in theknown universe. 150 zeros is improbability bound. Worse than this statesthat the opposite is true. One of the premier origin of life expert, Paul Davies, wrote: "How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their ownsoftware, and where did the very peculiar form of information needed to get the first living cell up and running come from? Nobody knows." P. Davies, "Life Force," New Scientist, vol. 163: 2204 (18Sept. 1999), pp. 27-30. This is appalling! These atheist scientists know absolutelynothing about operational/observable science. Simply saying that they are credulous is giving them toomuch credit. They are far worse than credulous.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
And yet again you duck and dodge and do everything possible to avoid answering simple direct questions. You constantly deflect and divert to cover up the obvious fact that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you are talking about.
You falsely claim to be replying to my Message 2617 in which I responded directly to your outright lies about radiometric dating. That included this direct question:
dwise1 writes: Diamonds taken from Zaire yielded an age of six billion years. They were older than the supposedly four billion years assigned to the earth itself. OK, WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE? Otherwise, you're just pulling more lies out of your ass. We need to see what the source actually says, even if it is creationist (and hence lying). Hopefully, that creationist will cite a non-creationist source, even more hopefully a scientific source. Then when given a scientific source, we can see what it actually says. So what is your source? Of course, you will never answer that question both because you have no clue what you are talking about, but also because you are a lying piece-of-shit creationist (which is of course very redundant since all that is part of "creationist"). Instead, you post yet another overly long stream of nonsensical bullshit lies -- creationist lies in this case, other lies in the case of your "reply" to GDR in Message 2621. Thank you yet again for your testimonial that your entire religion is nothing but pure crap.
Dwise, everything you post is meaningless. Pure projection! Everything I post to you is in direct reply to what you have posted! (ie, extensive use of qs-tags) I reply directly to you as indicated by my quoting the part of your messages that I am replying to. Furthermore, I explain what is wrong with your false claims and why they are wrong. IOW, what I post is full of meaning. In sharp contrast, you have never been seen to actually reply to anybody! You never quote the message that you claim to be replying to (not a single qs-tag ever). And none of your "replies" have anything to do with those messages you lie about "replying to". On top of which you only ever post complete nonsense. The very definition of "meaningless." And in addition to that, we know that your accusation, "everything you post is meaningless", is a complete lie. BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO READ ANYTHING THAT WE WRITE! [voice=whiny little bitch]"Waaaah! Your posts are too long and my teeny-tiny phone is too smwall to read anything! Waaaah! Waaaah! Waaaah!" [/voice] Grow the fuck up already!
Everything that evolutionists accept is based entirely on "blind chance." Absolutely false! Such a completely false and ignorant statement is conclusive evidence that you have no idea what evolution is nor how it works. You truly do not know what you are talking about! That is why you absolutely must at the very least try to answer my simple direct questions (posting them here yet again for the n-th time -- REMEMBER: every time I have to repost from a previous message, it makes the new message longer, all because of your own malfeasance so don't complain to me because it's your own damned stupid fault):
dwise1 writes: Here are some extremely pertinent questions for you that I repeated in Message 2596 ... you know, my message that you just lied about replying to:
dwise1 writes: There's a question that no creationist can answer, that no creationist dares to even think about answering. This question terrifies creationists so much that when I asked it of an experienced local YEC activist he abruptly canceled his email account and waited two years before publishing his new account in the monthly newsletter he published. For the 20 years of our email correspondence, this same creationist absolutely refused to ever discuss any of the young-earth claims that he believed in so absolutely, indicating that even he knew what utter crap his claims were (for that matter, I've found no experienced young-earth creationist willing to discuss any young-earth claims). That terrifying question in its most basic form is: What are you talking about? To help you in answering it, I will focus it in to more specific questions:
If you were to tackle those questions, then that would help immensely in getting a productive discussion going. Give it a try, though I have virtually no doubt that you will never even consider it and that you will completely ignore this message.
And one more question I asked you in Message 2598:
dwise1 writes: Here's another question you need to answer: If Life arose through natural processes, would that disprove Creation? Or God? WHY? Since you are so devoted to fake creationism, I predict that you will answer "Yes", that life having arisen through natural processes would disprove God. Therefore, the important part of that question is the "WHY?". Whatever would lead you to belief something so utterly stupid? You refuse to answer any simple, pertinent question because you either are engaged in deliberate deception or (given that you are a bottom-feeder in the creationist ecology) you know nothing and have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. So then:
It's really that simple, but you and every other creationist are incapable of ever answering any of those very simple and highly pertinent questions. Since you will very predictably refuse to answer any of those questions, then, given the Nature of the Beast (ie, creationists), your refusal or avoidance of answering will be your tacit admission that you are a brain-dead creationist who knows absolutely nothing about anything, but especially about what you think (Wait! A creationist think? Like that could ever happen!)
Plus there's still GDR's question to you of what an "evolutionist" is supposed to be, which you will never ever answer. You don't even know, do you? Typical stupid creationist.
... {typical creationist quotemining and nonsensical blathering } ... Typische selbstverständliche Schweinerei. For the quotemining, please provide the rest of the quote. Like the following few paragraphs from Monod. And what was hidden in the ellipses (ie, "...") in Huxley. Plus justify quoting such old sources. Interesting thing about ellipses: they can hide a helluva lot. Which is why the very first thing we must do when a creationist posts a quotemine is to go and read the original. There are so many infamous examples, but for me the most interesting one was a single sentence divided by an ellipsis. It was from a four-page article in which the first part was on the first page and the second part was on the last page in the concluding paragraph! Plus, needless to say, the two sentences those parts were lifted out of were saying something different from each other. That is why when encountering a creationist quote the sure bet is to dismiss it as a deliberate misquote, AKA "a deliberate lie".
Blind chance is not science. In fact, it is the opposite of science. Yeah, so what's your point? You are trying to falsely claim that evolution is blind chance, which we have proven to be a lie! Nobody would believe such a stupid lie except for a stupid creationist. Please stop your damned lying. Which you will of course never do, because your God of Lies demands that you serve Him through lies. ... {typical brain-dead creationist confusion about probabilities coupled with the typical creationist lies inherent in misapplying blind chance to a events that did not come about by blind chance but rather had evolved} ... Everybody who understands evolution to any degree knows that it is not the same as blind chance. The only people who think that evolution is the same as blind chance are STUPID CREATIONISTS! You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Which is why it is so imperative for you to answer my questions!
The placenta is one cell.
What a fucking idiot! "one cell"! The placenta is an organ. Organs are made of tissue, which in turn are made of cells. MANY CELLS, not just ONE! I do not for one moment doubt that you just blindly and mindlessly copied that idiocy from your creationist source. Which means that your source is possibly even more ignorance and stupid than you are.
And only the most credulous of humans would accept that the right protein from 100,000 happened by chance on the first try. Nobody but a STUPID CREATIONIST would think such an incredibly stupid thing! Rather, those proteins would have evolved! Though your "happened by chance on the first try" betrays yet another ignorant and stupid way in which you do not understand anything about evolution. Which is why it is so imperative that you answer my question of how you think that evolution works. Because you will never be able to understand anything we tell you about evolution if you have such stupid false expectations of what our answers should tell you. So I guess that this is your admission that you creationists are "the most credulous of humans." Time for you to open your eyes and pull your head out of your ass.
LEARN SOMETHING!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
You do realize that the bible stories of the amalekites and amorites are just stories. No historical evidence at all to support the stories.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024