|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
It is not up to me to disprove your claim. It is up to you to prove your claim. GREAT!!!! That means that you will finally support your claims! Instead of just running away every single time we ask. So then, yet again! (last reposted in Message 2681 on 10-Aug-2023):
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!)
We eagerly await your answers to those questions as you finally work to prove your claims. Or are you nothing more than a lying hypocrite? Edited by dwise1, : changed subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Dwise, I will need to answer your questions one or two at a
time. 1. There is no evidence in support of evolution. There areno intermediate fossils. If multiple changes in a species happened over eons oftime, that led to the creation of new species, we would have thousands and thousands and thousands of intermediate fossils. We have none. There is no known mechanism to account for such achange. Genesis clearly states that kind produces kind. God isquite clear in that kind does not produce a different kind. This hard law from God will always hold true. And thishas always been observed. This is observational and empirical. It is hard science. When speaking of Adam, God, with his own hands, moldedhim from the dust of the ground. God then put Adam in a sleep, where He removed a riband created Eve from it. A rib is the only bone that will grow back. The only mechanism for burying tens of millions oforganisms and preserving their soft tissue is rapid burial in a worldwide flood. Their fossils are found all around the globe. There are drawings, etchings, pictographs, reliefs, etc,of dinosaurs. Men throughout history have described their encounterswith them. Some dictionaries as late as 1900 list them as "now rare." The Bible lists them as dragons. There are dragon storiesthat have been recorded from around the world. The Word dinosaur did not enter our vocabulary until 1841. If TE's believe that all they see is the result of evolution,do they also believe that angels, who are composed of spirit, and far greater in might, also evolved? God states that we can become far greater that angelsthat we will rule over them. He also states that we can become His very sons. As members of the God family. We were created in His image. We did not evolve into His image. Does it make sense to say that humans, who will have afar greater future than angels, were left to evolve, while angels were created as they are? I believe in variations in a species, which evolutionists callmicro-evolution. But they cannot go past their limitations. I have already discussed "epigenetics." Perhaps you shouldresearch it yourself. It isn't that oppose evolution. It is simply that there is noevidence for it. A literal interpretation of Genesis quite clearly proves this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
candle2 writes:
GDR, you made a statement that the Genesis account ismythology. Okay, you have the floor. Prove it to me. It is not up to me to disprove your claim. It is up to you to prove your claim. We are talking about a Christian FAITH. It is BELIEF. If I could prove it we would have it as knowledge, not faith and belief. For the sake of argument let's say you could disprove evolutionary theory. Once you had done that how would you prove that the two Genesis accounts, which don't agree with each other anyway, are factual? Do you worship a god who commits and commands genocide as in the cases of the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Amalekites and the Canaanites? If you do, how do you square that with the teachings of Jesus including His command to love your enemy. You seem to keep avoiding that question. You can worship an inerrant Bible or you can choose Jesus. You can't do both.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dwise, I will need to answer your questions one or two at a time. Then please do so instead of just posting even more nonsense and creationist lies. Oh ... is that what you are trying to do here? Could have fooled us! How were we supposed to know if you don't even mention the question? No reference at all except for a single digit. You've been here more than four and a half years and you have learned nothing in all that time? Let's get back to basics: When you respond to a question, then quote the question! Otherwise, nobody will know that your "answer" is supposed to be an answer, or to what. Quoting is very simple to do. In fact, we've been telling you to do it for years; eg, in Message 231 (21-May-2022):
dwise1 writes: Use [qs] tags to quote the part of the message you are replying to!. Called dBCodes, they're analogous to HTML tags, but delimited by square brackets ( [ ] ) instead of angle brackets ( < > ). If you need to see an example of how to use those tags, then click on the Peek button of a message (or select Peek Mode if you're in the middle of a reply.
When you fail to tell us what you are "replying" to, then you make it that much more difficult for us to figure out what the hell you're talking about. This "reply" of yours is a typical example, since not only does nothing here has anything at all to do with my Message 198, but it actually defies that demand. Here's how you do it:
The alternative to quoting the individual question you are addressing would be to always copy-and-paste the entire list of questions so that we can immediately correlate the number to the question. But that would eat up too much bandwidth, plus you would still need to copy-and-paste, so quoting the individual question in question would be a much better idea. That will make everything clear and avoid confusion. For my part, I have gone back and changed the subtitle of this sub-thread from "Re: Are Biblical Creationists Willfully Ignorant?" to "Re: candle2, Answer These Simple Questions". That way, all your replies will be identifiable by the subtitle. Again, we want to prevent confusion. Well, actually, in order to practice their deception, creationists depend very heavily on generating as much confusion as possible, which is why I want to prevent confusion. Next I will address your "answer", which is problematic. Do be working on the next question: Do you believe that evolution somehow opposes Creation or God? Why? Because there's nothing I know of in evolution that would conflict with actual Creation. But your fake creationism, being contrary to reality, has many problems with reality, which includes evolution (the real thing, not whatever nonsense you think that evolution is, but then that's the subject of Question Three).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Dwise, without a doubt evolution opposes creation and God.
There are hundreds of reasons why this is so. The main problem is this: If the first eleven chapters are mythological or allegorical,why could we not say the same about the rest of the Bible? For example: 1 Peter 3:20 "Which sometime were disobedient,when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the Ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." 2 Peter 2:5 "And spared not the old world, but saved Noahthe eight person (this does not refer to the eighth person on the Ark, but refers to him being the eighth preacher of righteousness after the fall. There were seven before him), a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." 2 Peter 3:6 "Whereby the world that then was, beingoverflowed with water perished:" If the first eleven chapters of Genesis are myths, then soare the books written by Peter. They are worthless. Hebrews 11:7 "By faith Noah....prepared an Ark to thesaving of his house; by the which he condemned the world..." Paul is the author of Hebrews, and many other books ofthe NT. If what he states here is allegorical, how can we not viewall his works as being allegorical? If not for a global flood, what did Paul men by "preparedan Ark to saving of his house"? Matthew 24: 37-38 (This is Jesus speaking) "But as thedays of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38. "For as in the days that were before the flood they wereeating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the Ark." Did both Matthew and Jesus accept Genesis 1-11 as beingmythical? If they did, how can we tell when they are being serious? Luke 3:36 "Which was the Son of Cainan,...which was theSon of Noe,..." Is Luke an idiot. Did he actually believe that Noah was aliteral person? How can we trust anything he wrote? I am not finished with your 2nd question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Dwise, still on the 2nd question.
Allow me to make something crystal clear: Jesus is theGod of both the Old and New Testaments. He is the member of the God family who created theuniverse and all that is in it. If anyone can interpret scripture, it is He. John 1: 1-3. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Wordwas with God, and the Word was God. 2. The same was in the beginning with God. 3. All things were made by Him; and without Him was notanything made that was made." In the beginning were two Supreme Beings. One was theWord; the other was God. The one known as the Word created everything, but theother member of God the greater of the two; He was the undisputed leader. God, in these verses, is from Theos. Plural in usage. God desired a family. He desired a family of other Godbeings. Sons who would be of the same substance as He is. This is when the relationship between the Word and Godturned into a Father and Son existence. This is the model of the final relationship between wehumans and God. He will be our Father and we His sons. Jesus stated thatwe are His brethren. The finality of this is when we are resurrected as spirit beings who are then born again into God's family. But the point is that Jesus created everything. Read John 1:10; Ephesians 3:9; and Colossians 1:16. John1:18; John 17:26; John 5:37;and, John 6:46 statesthat no man has every seen God the Father except Jesus himself. Furthermore that no man has ever heard the Father'svoice, or seen His shape. Jesus state that He Himself declared the Father to us. In other words He made the Father known to us. Numerous patriarchs in the OT saw God. Moses evensaw the back of God in all His glory. Exodus 33:23. In Exodus 24: 9-11 70 Israelites saw the God of Israel. But they never saw the Father; they saw Jesus, who atthat time was the Word. When Moses asked God what he should tell the Israeliteswhen they asked who sent him, God replied, "I AM THAT I AM. Tell them that I AM sent you. In John 8:56 Jesus stated that Abraham rejoiced to seeHis day. The Jews in vs. 57 replied "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" Jesus replied, "Truly, truly, I say unto you, before Abrahamwas, I AM." The Jews knew exactly what that implied. They picked uprocks to stone Him, but He slipped away from them. In John 18 when they came to arrest Jesus he asked them,"Whom seek ye?" They answered "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus replied vs. "I AM he. And as soon as He said thatthey went backward, and fell to the ground. Notice that the he in I AM he is in italics. It was addedby the translators. Jesus referred as I AM in numerous passages. The bread of life; light of the world; the door; Good Shepherd;Resurrection and the life; the vine; etc.. In the OT, Jesus referred to Himself in much the say way(s). In John 8:23-24 Jesus stated I AM beneath and above. In John 13:19 Jesus told His disciples "Ye may believe that I AM. The Apostle Thomas, after seeing the marks in Jesus'hands replied, "My Lord and my God." The Father Himself calls Jesus God. Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God,is for ever and ever"... Jesus is the member of God who said to the other member:"Let us, make man in our likeness, after our image." I have clearly shown that Jesus is the Creator in Genesis. Not finished with question 2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
A word to the wise candle, there's zero point quoting scripture as proof of anything to an atheist. Got anything else?
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
If evolution opposes god then your god must not exist because evolution is actually a fact and has been occurring continuously since life began. Reality trumps your mythology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
A word to the wise candle, there's zero point quoting scripture as proof of anything to an atheist. But it does serve a purpose in that it helps reveal to us what his position actually is. For example, he has been trying to use the "creation science" deliberate deception (the very reason why it was created) of presenting his opposition to evolution as being for "scientific reasons", but rather his opposition is for purely religious reasons as he just revealed again. He keeps returning to his theology and its myriad assertions and tries to get reality to fit into that theology. When that doesn't work (basically, his theology, especially the creationism, is contrary to fact and to reality, so that can never work), instead of realizing the need to fix his theology he attacks and rejects reality. We also saw that in his criticism of theistic evolution based solely on "problems" raised by his theology, as we just saw here. The advice that quoting the Bible means nothing to an atheist reminded me of a 2015 blog by a Christian blogger, "10 Things I Wish Christians Considered Before Arguing with Atheists" -- as I seem to recall, it has been copied and reposted on several sites, so just Google for it (eg, 10 Things I Wish Christians Considered Before Arguing with Atheists - iDisciple ). In his discussion of each point he provides links to other blogs for illustration of his point, so finding it online could be worthwhile. Here's my summary of that list with an occasional comment by me:
DWise1: From 10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate - iDisciple :
quote: Edited by dwise1, : Added link to YouTube video related to a creationist claim I mentioned
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Dwise, as I have shown, Jesus is the God of the OT. He is
The member of God (Elohim- plural in usage) who created everything. When one looks to interpret Genesis, one must see whatthe Creator has to say about it. If the first eleven chapters of Genesis, why did Jesus notthink that Genesis 1:27 was also a myth? "God created man in His own image, in the image of Godcreated He him; male and female created He them." Also in Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave hisfather and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Jesus, the Creator, had this to say about this so-calledmyth. Mark 10:6-8 "But from the beginning of creation of thecreation God (Jesus) made them male and female. 7. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,and cleave to his wife; 8. "And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are nomore twain, but one flesh." Read also Matthew 19:4-6. Genesis 2:2-3 "And on the seventh dat God (Jesus) endedHis work which He had made, and He rested (ceased) on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. 3. "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: Jesus doesn't look on Genesis as being mythological orallegorical. Jesus, who created and sanctified (set apart for a purpose)had much to say about the Sabbath day. Exodus 20: 8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep itHoly. 9. " Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; 10. "But the seventh day is Sabbath of the Lord thy God;In it thou shalt not do any work..." 11. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, thesea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day: Wherefore the Lord (Jesus) blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."" Read also Exodus 31:13-17. Verse 18 states that Jesus wrote these Commandmentson stone, with His finger. They are permanent. In the NT Jesus and the Apostles kept the Sabbath. Paultaught the Gentiles on the Sabbath. Matthew 12:8 "For the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbathday." Observing the Sabbath isn't based on myths. Speaking of the time when Jesus sets up His 1000 yearsKingdom, Paul had this to say: Hebrews 4:9 "There remaineth therefore a rest to thepeople of God." The Word "rest" is from Sabbatismos, which is fromSabbath. Read Hebrews 4:1-11. This refers to the 1000 years ofChrist's Kingdom. 2 Peter 3:8 "But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing,that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The creation days consisted if one evening and onemorning, a 23 hour period. The same is true of the Sabbath. However, the Sabbath rest that Paul describes is aperiod of 1000 years. From the time of creation each day will have a future of1000 years, just as the Sabbath will have. In other words, God gas allowed humanity 6000 years totry every form of government possible. At the end of these 6000 years humanity will reach a point that we would kill every life on earth if Jesus did not intercede. Read Matthew 24. Those 6000 years are staring right at us. I got a little off track. And I could type dozens of reasonswhy Genesis should be taken literally, and why God sets himself against the teachings of evolution. Americans today see no difference between man andwoman. The see no reason why men should not marry men and why women should no marry women Also, they see no reason to observe the seventh day Sabbath. You wanted answers from me. Next time I will reply to question #3.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
{ bible-babble gobbledygook bullshit } Non sequitur. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Why are you wasting your and everybody's time with irrelevant religious nonsense? Shouldn't you instead have been working on question #2 (Do you believe that evolution somehow opposes Creation or God? Why?) as you had promised? Why are you avoiding that question? Please stop this stupid stalling and simply answer the questions.
And QUOTE THE QUESTION YOU'RE ANSWERING! What are you trying to hide?
Next time I will reply to question #3. WHAT THE FUCK? What the fuck happened to the answer to Question #2? WHY ARE YOU AVOIDING ANSWERING THAT QUESTION? Are you refusing to answer it? What the fuck kind of bullshit crap are you trying to pull here? Does your liar-god really drive you so strongly to lie and deceive all the time? Why follow a liar-god who drives you to evil?
ANSWER THE QUESTION:
2. Do you believe that evolution somehow opposes Creation or God? Why? Then you can move on to the next question:
3. That begs the question of what you think that evolution is. What do you think evolution is?
ABE: Oh, shit! Are you one of those insufferable brainless cretinous creationists who never writes anything, but rather just copies others verbatim without any thought? Fucking waste of oxygen. We had one of those on CompuServe, a SDAist named Paul Ekdahl. He had gotten hold of a book by ICR lawyer Wendell Bird and he would copy and post pages at a time. We would respond and ask him direct questions about what he had posted and all he would do was to copy a couple more pages that had nothing to do with the questions. The fucking idiot! He was so stupid and slavish in copying from Bird's book that he would always include the footnote numbers in the text. We kept insisting that he write in his own words and he kept on just copying from Bird and other creationist books. A form of creationist echolalia, an indication of a seriously broken brain. But then one day he finally started using his own words. Guess what? All he could write about was trying to convert us! The fucking idiot! He even copied an SDA book about Ellen G. White and the miraculous things she could do when she entered into a trance; eg, make herself too heavy to lift, hold an object with her outstretched arm for extended periods of time, make her arm unbendable, etc. I told Paul that when I was still practicing Aikido I used to be able to do those same things and I never had to go into a trance to do it. At that point, he suddenly had to devote all his time to his small business (mail-order, I seem to recall). I never saw him on CompuServe again. So, do your own writing! AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS instead of trying to bullshit us! Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Dwise, without a doubt evolution opposes creation and God. No, it doesn't. How could it possibly? Evolution does not oppose the idea nor possibility of Creation or "God" any more than gravity or static electricity would. One of the questions is whether you believe that something happening (explicit example in the question is the origin of life) through natural processes would disprove "God". The only logical view of Creation is that the Creator had created those natural processes to do what they naturally do, so there is no way that those natural processes would oppose nor disprove that Creator. Those natural processes include evolution, so how could it oppose or disprove that Creator? Claiming that it would makes no sense. Science is the study of Nature, AKA "the Creation", and how it works. Many scientists were motivated to learn more about the Creator by studying His Creation (eg, the anecdote that Haldane found that the Creator had an inordinate fondness for beetles). If the Creator actually created the Creation, then what science discovers is what was created. No inherent conflict between Creation and science. And since evolution is part of science, there is no inherent conflict between Creation and evolution. The only way that conflict can arise is if a theology decides that there is a conflict. This happens when a theology makes assertions about Nature that are not true (eg, men have one fewer rib than women because of Adam and Eve -- that exact claim was in the Answers in Genesis' original "Claims We Wish Creationists Would Not Use", I swear to God and three other white men (credit: Redd Foxx) ). The problem for you is that your creationism denies Creation and effectively teaches that if the Creation is as it actually is, then that disproves God. Your false theology of creationism demands that the Creation (AKA Nature, reality) must be different than it actually is in order for God and Scripture and whatever else to be true, so when those false assertions about the Creation are demonstrated to be false, then that disproves God. Therefore, your mission is to deny the Creation and to "disprove" it in order to defend your god. For example, John Morris of the ICR said:
quote: Well, the earth is indeed more than 10,000 years old, much older, so those who believe in John Morris must accept that Scripture has no meaning and as a result do as their church and creationism has taught them they must do when Scripture has been disproven (according to their teachings, that is achievable by finding even one single error in the Bible): become atheists. Even those who do not believe in John Morris could accept his stated creationist position as official policy that creationist claims being false disproves God and they can just reject Christianity out of hand and be done with that nonsense, freeing their minds for far more important and productive pursuits. There's also ICR creationist John L. Groenlund having proclaimed:
quote: Well, evolution is indeed true (actual evolution, not whatever stupid bullshit it is that you call "evolution" ... we have yet to discover what that is in your answer to Question #3, What do you think evolution is?, assuming you don't try to evade that one too like you did with #2, Do you believe that evolution somehow opposes Creation or God? Why?), so yet again creationism "proves" that the Bible is not true. From my time with the Jesus Freak Movement (c. 1970) I am fully aware of how completely and utterly a fundamentalist's faith depends on the myth of a perfect Bible. So we have creationism turning both former believers and potential converts away from Christianity. Verily, creationism is perhaps the single greatest contributor to the growth and spread of atheism. Refer to my Message 2919 where I presented material from a couple articles/blogs by a Christian blogger, Michael Lehmann. In his list of "10 Things I Wish Christians Considered Before Arguing with Atheists", read Item #8:
dwise1 writes: quote: Part of my motivation in opposing creationism is because it turns too many believers into atheists, the wrong kind of atheists. Your lies about what atheism is creates "sloppy atheists" with the bad qualities that you have taught them to exhibit, plus they will be more likely to be of the anti-theist variety, the kind that you just love to hate on. I don't mind people becoming atheists, but I would prefer their deconversion to come from their having outgrown that nonsense rather than from your having forced them out into atheism. You need to work harder on this question of "Why do you oppose evolution?" Edited by dwise1, : Added links to quotes on my quotes page to provide bibliography
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dwise, I will need to answer your questions one or two at a time. We're still waiting for you to start answering those questions. Instead, you have been wasting everybody's time, including yours, posting long messages filled with random religious nonsense that has nothing to do with those questions, nor with anything else. An even worse waste would be if you somehow thought that you were answering the questions, but nobody could tell that because nobody can understand what the hell you are talking about. If you fail to tell us explicitly what you are replying to/answering in a particular message, then there is no way for us to tell that that message is supposed to contain an answer to a question. All that writing for nothing, not only a complete waste of time but you also draw our ire for wasting bandwidth with irrelevant religious garbage. The simple and conventional solution is to state the purpose of the message, including the identification of what you are replying to most commonly in the form of quoting that to which you are replying.. The problem is that this is something that in four years you have never done! Again, when you respond to a question, then quote the question! Otherwise, nobody will know that your "answer" is supposed to be an answer, or to what. Or even whether you are answering a question ... or anything! This is extremely easy and simple to do through copy-and-paste, one of the most basic computer skills there is and which is usually one of the first ones learned. I even explained to you how to do in Message 2914, SO YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO NOT QUOTE WHAT YOU ARE REPLYING TO. Your continued refusal to extend that most basic courtesy communicates to us your contempt for the forum, the process of communication, and us. And indicates that your only goal here is play the role of the troll whose only purpose in life is to jerk us around. Well, the same to you, buddy! A clue to the clueless (ie, you):
When we have to repeatedly ask you "What are you talking about?", that is because NOBODY CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! The requirement for correcting that sad state of affairs is solely on you! Turn to and clean up your sorry mess, mister!
ABE: I'm listing the questions yet again here as a ready reference for you to use in the copy-and-paste of the pertinent question in your message that finally answers that question.
The original questions:
Additional question posed later:
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? I feel that I must add that you should express your answers in direct statements written by your own self. A single paragraph will communicate your answer vastly better than long, long lists of stupid unrelated Bible quotes. You wail and gnash your teeth about the length of my replies to you, yet you try to bury us in mountains of recycled bullshit. Forget about the splinter in my eye and tend to the beam in yours. If you are unable or unwilling to answer those questions, then at the very least admit to it:
Of course, if you are unable to answer any of the questions and hence know nothing of what's going on, including why you are even here, then you are just wasting everybody's time as well as generating nothing but ill will for your religion. As other Christians online have expressed:
Jesus wants us to spread light, not heat.
So far, you have failed to spread even a single lumen of light, which would be ironic about your name, candle2, though that irony is undoubtedly lost on you.
Edited by dwise1, : ABE: Repeated the list of questions still waiting to be answered
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dwise, I will need to answer your questions one or two at a time. 1. There is no evidence in support of evolution. There are no intermediate fossils. We have none. { followed by 42 lines of standard creationist nonsensical lies and BS, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with the subject (as usual }
When you do answer the questions, I certainly hope that you will not try to bury us in that kind of bullshit -- SPOILER: he hasn't, but rather he poured the bullshit on even thicker OBTW, candle2, LOOK AT WHAT I DID! I Q*U*O*T*E*D YOU! It's that easy to do! Why do you refuse to do it?
It isn't that oppose evolution. That makes no sense at all. In fact, it isn't even a sentence. Did you instead mean to write: "It isn't that I oppose evolution."? And yet you do oppose it, unless you want to really push that lie.
It is simply that there is no evidence for it. Except that's not true, but rather it's an outright lie that creationists constantly tell. Sorry, but just because your Saint Goebbels teaches that if you repeat your lies enough times they will become true does not mean that he wasn't lying to you about that too. But setting that aside for a moment, why would "no evidence for evolution" alone motivate you so strongly to push your lies here for four years (well, it's been more like three years that you've been pushing creationist lies; the first year was theological stuff)? You're trying to cover something up. There are a lot of things for which there is no evidence, like all things supernatural. If there's no evidence for something, we simply note that fact and move on to more interesting matters. Or simply point at the idiots pushing such matters and laugh at them (eg, Trump's Big Lie and all the pernicious lies stemming therefrom along with a myriad of sundry MAGAt idiocies). But go on a full-blown campaign against them? Especially when you are so impaired in pursuing this crusade (as I would surmise from the clues). No, there's a lot more behind your dogged pursuit that merely "there's no evidence" (which is, of course, a lie). Your repeated appeals to the Bible, especially in your other messages (eg, Message 2915, Message 2916, Message 2920) that you might think are answering my questions (which they are not, not even remotely) clearly demonstrate that your motivation is purely religious and has nothing whatsoever to do with the evidence (especially considering that you consistently ignore the evidence). Recall the history of creationism which I have recounted many times on this forum (most recently in Message 2910):
dwise1 writes: When the teaching of evolution made a come-back post-Sputnik and the 1920's "monkey laws" were struck down in the wake of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), the newly revitalized anti-evolution movement at first reverted to their old 1920's approach of opposing evolution for religious reasons (at least that approach was somewhat honest) but then by the mid-1970's they realized that that would no longer work. That is when they created "creation science" (AKA "scientific creationism") as a deliberate deception. Part of that process was to take their body of "educational" (actually indoctrination) materials and play the game of "Hide the Bible"; ie, superficially scrubbing it of all overt and explicit religious references reducing "God" to "some unnamed Creator". Their fundamental lie was that "our opposition is purely for scientific reasons", when in fact their reasons have always been purely religious plus their position enjoys no support from scientific evidence. The First Lie of "creation science" is "our opposition to evolution is purely for scientific reasons, nothing at all religious about it". We clearly see that you are trying to use the very same First Lie. You don't have the chops to pull off that First Lie. You can't fool us; you can only fool yourself (which shows how easily you're fooled). Come clean with yourself that your motivation is purely religious.
A literal interpretation of Genesis quite clearly proves this. Sorry. That lie is just so ridiculous. And you pushing that lie only kids only sets them up to become atheists when they learn how you had lied to them all their lifes. But you don't really care about them, do you? I once visited the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) when they were headquartered in Santee, Calif (mid-1990's?). Just down the hill from them I'm sure I drove past a stoneworker shop and I'm sure I saw a millstone there. I assumed that they got a lot of business from the ICR, so much so that the ICR must have gotten a volume discount for millstones for creationists to wear around their necks. Or does your church not tell you about that verse?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member Posts: 850 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Dwise, questions 3 and 4 are closely related.
The single most important way to tell you what evolutionis, is to tell you what it is not. Evolution is not a viable means of achieving the millionsof differing organisms, including plant life, that now exists, and has existed throughout history. Evolution equates to changes in an organism(s) over time.This is as clear as it can gets. However, there is no way that one "kind" of animal canevolve, even over eons of time, into another "kind." Isolation will not lead to a new kind. Neither will genedrift (change in gene pool), bottlenecks, speciation (in which demands of a differing environment leads to unique characteristics), mutations, or natural selection. All of these effects lead to a loss of information. God (Jesus) clearly states in Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 25-25;that kind will produce kind. Moses wrote in Leviticus 11:14-29 and Deuteronomy 14:13-18 about clean and unclean meat. He then describes the differences. According to what Moses wrote there is no evolving ofone kind into another kind. If this were the case how one know when a clean animal evolves into an unclean animal or vice-versa? I do not eat animals that God calls unclean. Uncleananimals were created for purposes other than food. Unclean means polluted or contaminated. I am not trying to convince one to eat or not eat certainanimals. The point is that a clean animal will always remain clean-no evolution. Kinds, according to God, will always produce the samekind. If one believes that the first eleven chapters of Genesisare mythical, does one now believe Leviticus and Deuteronomy are also myths? And if so how can anyone trust a thing that Moses wrote? While it is true that some animals of the same kind can,through bottlenecking, isolation or whatever, lose the ability to successfully mate with others of the same kind outside of their population, they are still of the same kind. They cannot breed with a different kind. A woman whocannot have children is still of the human kind. She cannot breed with an ape, chimp, or racoon. What I mean by a dog will not give birth to a kitten is thatthey are not of the same kind. It does not matter how much time you allow for this tohappen; it will never happen. Kind produces kind. Kind never produces anotherdifferent kind. And there is no evidence that this has ever happened.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024