Choosing a faith

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): 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? 

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.If multiple changes in a species happened over eons of
time, 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 a
change.Genesis clearly states that kind produces kind. God is
quite clear in that kind does not produce a different kind.This hard law from God will always hold true. And this
has always been observed. This is observational and
empirical. It is hard science.When speaking of Adam, God, with his own hands, molded
him from the dust of the ground.God then put Adam in a sleep, where He removed a rib
and created Eve from it. A rib is the only bone that will
grow back.The only mechanism for burying tens of millions of
organisms 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 encounters
with them.Some dictionaries as late as 1900 list them as "now rare."The Bible lists them as dragons. There are dragon stories
that 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 angels
that 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 a
far greater future than angels, were left to evolve, while
angels were created as they are?I believe in variations in a species, which evolutionists call
micro-evolution. But they cannot go past their limitations.I have already discussed "epigenetics." Perhaps you should
research it yourself.It isn't that oppose evolution. It is simply that there is no
evidence for it. A literal interpretation of Genesis quite
clearly proves this.

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.

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): Here's how you do it:

1. Create a qs-block by writing: [qs] [/qs] . In addition, the opening tag could name whom you are quoting; eg qs=DWise1. For examples, just put any message using a feature into Peek Mode.
   ​
2. Fill the qs-block using copy-and-paste, which is one of the most basic computer skills:
   ​
   1. With your mouse, highlight the text you want to copy by dragging the mouse over the text while holding down the left button. In this case, that would be the text of the question you want to answer.
   2. Copy that text by either right-clicking on the highlighted text and selecting Copy in the pop-up menu, or simply pressing Ctrl-C on your keyboard (my own preference).
   3. Select the destination by moving the mouse cursor between the qs-tags and left-clicking.
   4. Paste the copied text by either right-clicking and selecting Paste, or simply pressing Ctrl-V on your keyboard (again, my own preference).
   5. Done. Quick, easy, and completely painless.
   ​
3. Now position the cursor after the qs-block and start typing your answer.

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).

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 Noah
the 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, being
overflowed with water perished:"If the first eleven chapters of Genesis are myths, then so
are the books written by Peter. They are worthless.Hebrews 11:7 "By faith Noah....prepared an Ark to the
saving of his house; by the which he condemned the
world..."Paul is the author of Hebrews, and many other books of
the NT.If what he states here is allegorical, how can we not view
all his works as being allegorical?If not for a global flood, what did Paul men by "prepared
an Ark to saving of his house"?Matthew 24: 37-38 (This is Jesus speaking) "But as the
days 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 were
eating 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 being
mythical?If they did, how can we tell when they are being serious?Luke 3:36 "Which was the Son of Cainan,...which was the
Son of Noe,..."Is Luke an idiot. Did he actually believe that Noah was a
literal person?How can we trust anything he wrote?I am not finished with your 2nd question.

Dwise, still on the 2nd question.Allow me to make something crystal clear: Jesus is the
God of both the Old and New Testaments.He is the member of the God family who created the
universe 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 Word
was 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 not
anything made that was made."In the beginning were two Supreme Beings. One was the
Word; the other was God.The one known as the Word created everything, but the
other 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 God
beings. Sons who would be of the same substance as
He is.This is when the relationship between the Word and God
turned into a Father and Son existence.This is the model of the final relationship between we
humans and God.He will be our Father and we His sons. Jesus stated that
we 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 states
that no man has every seen God the Father except Jesus
himself.Furthermore that no man has ever heard the Father's
voice, 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 even
saw 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 at
that time was the Word.When Moses asked God what he should tell the Israelites
when 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 see
His 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 Abraham
was, I AM."The Jews knew exactly what that implied. They picked up
rocks 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 that
they went backward, and fell to the ground.Notice that the he in I AM he is in italics. It was added
by 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.

A word to the wise candle, there's zero point quoting scripture as proof of anything to an atheist. Got anything else?

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.

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:

---

1. Make sure you're arguing about the same definition of God
   
   For example, we have the coming at loggerheads between and with GDB, candle2, Phat, etc, as they all talk about "God" and "Jesus" and "what the Bible says" and argue past each other because they each are using different definitions.

   ​

   The same thing happens all the time as creationists use an entirely different (and to date undisclosed) definition for "evolution" than science does.
   ​
2. As Philip Yancey said, "No one ever converted to Christianity because they lost the argument."
   
   Which is why I keep trying to get creationists to stop and think about what they are saying. And keep asking them questions that will make them think. All in vain.
   ​
3. Don't treat your conversation as a confrontation -- treat it as a collaborative effort to get closer to truth.
   
   It seems that all they want to do is to attack what they think others believe in order to either convert them or neutralize them. It is extremely rare to find a creationist or a fundie who is will to just talk.

   ​

   For example, a fundie at work told me about a probability calculation for the evolution of the eye ("virtually impossible", of course), so I asked for the model used to describe the evolution of the eye -- in order to perform such a calculation, you need a math model for the event (you know, what Dr Kleinman could never understand), which would require a description of the event, how it worked, and what factors went into that. What I had heard before was requiring each individual part to "evolve" all on its own independent of all the other parts until they could all finally come together and work together in the finished product -- side claim: "the eye could not have served any function before that final stage". Of course, that's not how it would have evolved, but rather the parts would have evolved together providing light sensing from the start and at every stage, however primitive and inefficiently at first. But as I asked for those details, he became increasingly argumentative making a simple discussion impossible.

   ​

   ABE:
   {
   

   I just watched a Paulogia Live video in which he reviews an Eric Hovind (Son of Kent) video about "how the heart couldn't have evolved": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j36GWFq3Z6Y Creationist 'Gotcha' Question Exposes Ignorance.

   ​

   Most creationist arguments require presenting an "evolutionary model" which is ridiculous and has nothing to do with how things actually work. Eric presents the same kind of false model for the evolution of the circulatory system as the "the eye couldn't have evolved" argument described above, in which he proposes that the heart, blood vessels, and blood had to have each evolved separately and independently of each other, each useless without the other, until in the end they all came together to form a complex system as if by magic. Both Paul and commenters admit that when they used to be YECs themselves that kind of argument sounded convincing, but now they can see that that is not how it works. Rather, the precursors of all those components existed together and evolved together in a precursor to the final system with the components and the system all evolved together. And just as with the eye, we can find in nature living examples of each proposed stage of that evolution (eg, body fluids (precursor of blood) without circulation, an open circulatory system without vessels but with a kind of heart moving those body fluids, an open system with a vessel directing the body fluids away from the heart, add onto that vessels starting to gather blood into the heart, and so on).

   }
   

   ​

   They keep trying to turn it into a fight. We can only speculate why they keep doing that, especially since they won't explain that in a discussion (which they are determined to prevent).
   ​
4. Please, don't start the dialogue by talking about hell.
   
   This is what your "zero point quoting scripture as proof of anything to an atheist" made me remember this list.

   ​

   The blogger's explanation is less general than my take, which is that what they think is important is not the same as what others think: they have everything to fear about Hell while atheists don't. In a call-in discussion of Pascal's Wager, Forrest Valkai illustrated that by asking the caller why he's not worried about the Hells of other religions and why he doesn't become a Muslim out of fear of the Islamic Hell, which he says is worse than the Christian one. Answer is the same: you don't believe in it so it doesn't scare you.
   ​
5. Don't give an atheist your unsolicited opinion about why he embraces atheism.
   
   If we had a nickel for every time this happened, we'd be able to play video poker non-stop into the next century.
   ​
6. Stop saying evolution is wrong.
   
   The blogger states:

   quote:

   ---

   Contrary to popular belief, evolution and creation aren't mutually exclusive (link to 10 Thing I Wish Everyone Knew about the Creation vs Evolution Debate).

   ---

   What I keep saying and am now in the process of explaining yet again to candle2.

   ​

   Besides, attacking "evolution" (ie, their peculiar misunderstanding of evolution) does absolutely nothing to support their theology and only serves to create more atheists.

   ​

   I will quote that blogger's, Michael Lehmann, C-v-E list below, since I just found it.
   ​
7. Whenever possible, direct the conversation toward Jesus.
   
   ​
8. Don't unintentionally create more atheists.
   
   He said it better:

   Lehmann:

   ---

   Don’t present people with unnecessary false dilemmas, like choosing between evolution and Jesus. Theology that claims the Bible is scientifically accurate produces atheists who reject the Bible as bad science — and well-intentioned believers who defend it as good science. The Bible isn’t a book about science. It’s a book about Jesus. Sloppy theology creates sloppy atheism.

   ---

   ​
9. Ask about meaning and purpose.
   
   ​
10. A joyful, Christ-filled life is a far more powerful argument than anything else.
    

---

 From 10 Things I Wish Everyone Knew About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate - iDisciple :

quote:

---

1. Darwin’s idea can help us read the Bible better.

​

Darwin has helped us recover a truth the church fathers knew well but us moderns often forget: The Bible’s authority doesn’t depend on our ability to harmonize it with the latest scientific discoveries. We shouldn’t be disappointed that we can’t harmonize the Bible with science — we should be disappointed that we’ve tried. Treating the Bible as a science book, something it’s not, obscures its real meaning: teaching us about Jesus.

​

2. Yes, evolution is just a theory — and so is gravity.

​

As the National Academy of Sciences explains, a scientific theory is “a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.” Scientific theories are not random guesses.

​

In this debate, we should use the word “theory” properly. Remember Inigo Montoya’s warning in The Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

​

3. Evolution doesn’t disprove creation. It can’t.

​

Theologian William Carroll describes what the doctrine of creation is really about:

​

No explanation of cosmological processes, nor biological change for that matter . . . challenges the metaphysical account of creation, that is, of the dependence of the existence of all things upon God as cause.

​

The doctrine of creation is not about cosmological or biological change — it’s about why anything exists at all. Biological change — evolution — doesn’t put the creator God out of work.

​

4. If you believe Genesis 1 is science, you should also believe the sky is domed.

​

Check out Genesis 1:6: “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters” (KJV). The “firmament” — raqia in Hebrew — is a solid dome. Attempts to argue otherwise aren’t persuasive. If you read Genesis 1 as a scientific description of the world, you get this picture.

​

5. The structure and numbers in Genesis 1 are a big hint: It’s not about science.

​

Have you ever wondered why there are seven days in Genesis 1? God creates for six days and then rests for one, just like the ancient Israelites. Is there a deeper meaning to the number seven itself? Yes, it represents completeness. Genesis 1 isn’t bad science; it’s a great polemic against polytheistic creation stories. That’s why it’s so significant that God creates the sun, moon and stars (Genesis 1:16). Other cultures considered them divine.

​

Am I making all of this up? No, and that’s just the beginning of it. (Pun intended.) Check out a great article by theologian Conrad Hyers and find out “how deep the rabbit hole goes.”

​

6. If they’re read as straightforward history, the six-day creation story and the Adam and Eve story contradict each other.

​

In the first creation story (Genesis 1-2:3), humankind is created after plants and animals. In the second creation story (Genesis 2:4-3:24), Adam is made before plants and animals appear, and Eve is the last creation. Early Jewish and Christian interpreters caught this contradiction too, but they didn’t panic. Philo, for example, saw it as an indication of profound meaning under the text’s surface.

​

7. There are other creation stories in the Old Testament.

​

Genesis 1-3 doesn’t get to have all the fun, even though it’s at the center of the creation/evolution debate. There are more passages in the Old Testament that describe creation, such as Psalm 74:13. God crushes a sea monster in this verse, reminding me of Pacific Rim. These other creation accounts are additional reminders that the Bible isn’t teaching science.

​

8. How did Christians react to Charles Darwin’s discovery? Some of their responses might surprise you.

​

Darwin’s work received a mixed reaction from Christians in the nineteenth century. Some Christians, like Anglican clergyman Aubrey Moore, even hailed it as a gift to theology. Moore quipped that “under the disguise of a foe, [Darwinism] did the work of a friend.”

​

For more on Christian reactions to evolution, and the origins of contemporary creationism, watch Conor Cunningham’s great documentary: Did Darwin Kill God? Spoiler alert: No, he didn’t.

​

9. Darwin wasn’t an atheist, nor did he have a deathbed conversion to Christianity.

​

After Darwin lost his Christian faith, he became an agnostic.

​

10. Accepting evolution does not require accepting atheism. Choosing between creation and evolution is a false dilemma.

​

Have you heard someone say, “Evolution proves atheism”? That’s a philosophical conclusion, not a scientific statement. Atheist Eugenie Scott does a great job explaining that evolution does not entail atheism. For more information about reconciling evolution and biblical Christianity, explore The BioLogos Foundation. They have plenty of helpful resources.

---

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 what
the Creator has to say about it.If the first eleven chapters of Genesis, why did Jesus not
think that Genesis 1:27 was also a myth?"God created man in His own image, in the image of God
created He him; male and female created He them."Also in Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his
father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and
they shall be one flesh."Jesus, the Creator, had this to say about this so-called
myth.Mark 10:6-8 "But from the beginning of creation of the
creation 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 no
more twain, but one flesh."Read also Matthew 19:4-6.Genesis 2:2-3 "And on the seventh dat God (Jesus) ended
His 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 or
allegorical.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 it
Holy.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, the
sea, 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 Commandments
on stone, with His finger. They are permanent.In the NT Jesus and the Apostles kept the Sabbath. Paul
taught the Gentiles on the Sabbath.Matthew 12:8 "For the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath
day."Observing the Sabbath isn't based on myths.Speaking of the time when Jesus sets up His 1000 years
Kingdom, Paul had this to say:Hebrews 4:9 "There remaineth therefore a rest to the
people of God."The Word "rest" is from Sabbatismos, which is from
Sabbath.Read Hebrews 4:1-11. This refers to the 1000 years of
Christ'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 one
morning, a 23 hour period. The same is true of the Sabbath.However, the Sabbath rest that Paul describes is a
period of 1000 years.From the time of creation each day will have a future of
1000 years, just as the Sabbath will have.In other words, God gas allowed humanity 6000 years to
try 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 reasons
why Genesis should be taken literally, and why God sets
himself against the teachings of evolution.Americans today see no difference between man and
woman. The see no reason why men should not marry men
and why women should no marry womenAlso, they see no reason to observe the seventh day Sabbath.You wanted answers from me.Next time I will reply to question #3.

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? 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:   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!

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:

---

"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."

---

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:

---

"If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true."

---

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: 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?"

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):   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.

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 thickerOBTW, 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? 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. 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): 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. 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?

Dwise, questions 3 and 4 are closely related.The single most important way to tell you what evolution
is, is to tell you what it is not.Evolution is not a viable means of achieving the millions
of 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 can
evolve, even over eons of time, into another "kind."Isolation will not lead to a new kind. Neither will gene
drift (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 of
one 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. Unclean
animals were created for purposes other than food.
Unclean means polluted or contaminated.I am not trying to convince one to eat or not eat certain
animals. The point is that a clean animal will always
remain clean-no evolution.Kinds, according to God, will always produce the same
kind.If one believes that the first eleven chapters of Genesis
are 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 who
cannot 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 that
they are not of the same kind.It does not matter how much time you allow for this to
happen; it will never happen.Kind produces kind. Kind never produces another
different kind. And there is no evidence that this has
ever happened.