The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

You should get the Islam forum to start "The Qur'an, Creationism, and Prophecy" thread.

Jackass, how unchristian, trying to Inflict a thread like this on the Islam forum:)

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You always find a legitimate reason to avoid difficult questions mate

tbf, if more people insisted on not being drawn into off topic discussions, these boards would be alot easier to read.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

tbf, if more people insisted on not being drawn into off topic discussions, these boards would be alot easier to read.

Which would be fine if it was done consistently and not only when difficult questions are raised.

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which would be fine if it was done consistently and not only when difficult questions are raised.

In fairness, s/he did admit that s/he doesn't have the answer.

But I agree, avoiding, quesitons gets us no-where in the long run -if we do not ask, how can we possibly expect to know.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Which would be fine if it was done consistently and not only when difficult questions are raised.

Fair point, but thats between you and your arch-nemesis. I don't know the history of the war so can't comment:)

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...if they ACTUALLY WERE 'agnostic' they would keep their mouths firmly shut on the subject of God (as they wouldn't know or care whether He existed or not).
As this thread amply demonstrates Atheists are very vociferous indeed, in their claims that God doesn't exist and/ or even if He does, rejecting Him.

Agnosticism is a very different idea to Militant Atheistic Humanism ... which is a fully-fledged RELIGION, complete with its High Priests, Inquisitors, Heretics and Religious Warfare Tacticians ... as well as it's ordinary Acolytes who unquestioningly accept and repeat each and every Myth that emerges about the supposed Spontaneous Evolution of 'Microbes into Medical Doctors'!!!!:eek:

None of this is correct, for obvious reasons.

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

...some 'Dinosaurs' WERE warm-blooded MAMMALS!!!:pac::):D:eek:

For **** sake.That's all I can say.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Were you not here for this? J C thinks the rhinoceros and the triceratops are related.

Yeah I missed that. .

equivariant

J C wrote: »

...UNLIKE Evolution, ID and Creation Science are eminently falsifiable....for example, if it could be shown that spontaneous systems COULD, even theoretically, produce a specific functional protein without requiring all of the matter and time in the supposed 'Big Bang' Universe to do so!!!!



...BUT there ARE contemoraneous organisms, that were alive and are found fossilised alongside Dinosaurs that are STILL alive today ... and they are practically IDENTICAL to their fossils!!!!

...so called living fossils, like the Wollemi Pine (or Dinosaur Tree), the Crocodile, the Coelacanth Fish, and MANY MORE organisms ARE THE EQUIVALENT of finding a LIVING Dinosaur ... yet the Evolutionists HAVEN'T pronounced modern paleontology to be 'completely and irretrievably laid to waste'!!!

...I think your suggestion is correct ... and modern paleontology IS 'completely and irretrievably laid to waste' by these findings ... but the Materialist's blind FAITH in Materialism is too strong to accept such an obvious conclusion from the observable EVIDENCE!!!:eek::D

So many logical errors in such a short statement - impressive

First of all, you don't seem to understand your own "intelligent design" hypothesis. At least you have no understanding of what it is that would falsify this hypothesis.

...UNLIKE Evolution, ID and Creation Science are eminently falsifiable....for example, if it could be shown that spontaneous systems COULD, even theoretically, produce a specific functional protein without requiring all of the matter and time in the supposed 'Big Bang' Universe to do so!!!!

This would not falsify ID at all. The point is that ID, by its very nature is not falsifiable, since the (hypothetical) intelligent designer could, if it so desired have designed the universe to work in exactly the way that evolutionists suggest, or indeed, any other way it desired. Thus nothing can possibly falsify the ID hypothesis.

Second, as I have already pointed out, you do not give a specific event (as required by Popper's criterion). Rather you give a vague, ill defined concept - that of showing in some unspecified manner, that some system has an abstract property. This is not at all a falsifiability check. In order to meet the falsifiability criterion you would at least have to specify exactly what it is that would "show that spontaneous systems (whatever they are?) could produce etc/etc...". The onus is on you to describe the specific hypothetical event, not your adversary (as you would know if you actually understood the concept of falsifiability).

Finally, your comments about creatures that coexisted with dinosaurs still existing are completely irrelevant. Paleontology has never claimed that such events were impossible.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Please,stop using the word Militant.

Agnosticism and atheism are more similiar than you may think, it's irrelevant whether GOD exists or doesn't . The majority (all?) of both groups , will NOT acknowledge any GOD depicted in any of the ancient texts.

...I am using the word Militant so as not to 'tar all Atheists with the same brush'. There are undoubtedly some Atheists who are true Agnostics and don't either know or care whether God exists .... but, even a cursory glance at this thread proves that there ARE Militant Atheists out there with a definite ANTI-GOD agenda ... and they make no secret of the fact of their contempt for both God and His people.

...WHO has been hotly debating with me for the past thousand plus pages ... MOSTLY Atheists ... and in the most robust and strident manner possible.

...come on lads, trying to make out that Atheists are a 'fluffy folksey' bunch of guys and gals who are agnostic about God doesn't help the believability of anything else you might say about Evolution!!!!:D:eek:

...IF they were really 'fluffy' and 'folksey' they would call themselves Agnostics ... and behave accordingly!!!:eek::D

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In my lifetime Irish women were treated as lower than dirt because of the influence of the church. My mother personally knows someone who was put in a Magdelene laundry until she was 63 because when she was 21 she went to the cinema with a boy, came back an hour late simply because she lost track of time and her father thought she was a prostitute. But I don't try to paint all christians with that brush or say that's representative of christianty because that would be a straw man

...these people clearly WEREN'T Saved Christians ... and such actions are not in conformity with Christianity...so your point doesn't even qualify as a strawman!!!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Sam Vimes
J C, I will accept creationism if you can prove that Chewbacca is a not a wookie because if Chewbacca is wookie, creationism cannot be true

Wicknight
That DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

...quite TRUE ... but then, NOTHING about Spontaneous Evolution makes sense!!!!:pac::):D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

I would certainly call a Christian who decides that God wants him to blow up abortion clinics a militant Christian. I wouldn't call you a militant Christian, or Jakkass or Fanny or NT Wright.

... I wouldn't call him a Christian AT ALL. He is a murderer, who is taking the Law into his own hands!!!
A Militant Christian is one who is on fire with his faith and leaves nobody in any doubt where he stands on Jesus Christ and His teachings!!!
Militant Christians are identified by their LOVE for their fellow man ... sometimes TOUGH LOVE ... but LOVE nonetheless!!!!

Wicknight wrote: »

I would certainly call an atheist who decides to blow up a building because atheism told him to a militant atheist, though I've never heard of such a case (again confusing militant atheist with militant Communism is rather silly PDN, and something we have discussed at length)

What is being objected to is this ridiculous need that some people seem to have to paint the New Atheism movement (people like Dawkins, or Harris) or the Humanist movement as being "militant" simply because they speak their mind and have uncompromising ideas, and object to thinks like ID in science class rooms.

...the killer would be a Murderous Atheist ... and the campaigner is a Militant Atheist!!!!:D:eek:

J C

robindch wrote: »

I've been to North Korea, seen at first hand the grand religious personality cult that KJI and KIS created for themselves, seen perhaps 120,000 people perform at the bizarre Arirang Mass Games, spoken in Russian with North Korean soldiers and seen entire villages, down to kids of perhaps three or four, panning for gold in shallow streams in 35 degrees of heat. Not without a touch of pride, I must say that I also participated in the first known-successful attempt to drink the bar dry at the Yanggakdo_Hotel in Pyongyang. Have you?

...is this how Atheists take a 'moral' stance on the gross injustices inflcted by their fellow Atheists on other fellow Atheists??!!:eek::(

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Oh so the bible tells us that anyone who doesn't believe the bible only thinks it's foolish because they're perishing instead of being saved like you?



Uh oh :P

Looks like there's a pretty big risk involved in rejecting either one

...decisions ... decisions ... it all comes down to WHETHER you are going to believe on Jesus Christ ... or not ... and the decision is ENTIRELY up to YOU!!!!:D

PDN

J C wrote: »

... I wouldn't call him a Christian AT ALL. He is a murderer, who is taking the Law into his own hands!!!

A hypothetical murderer, given that no cases actually exist (except in the fevered imagination of fundamentalist atheists) of Christians killing people by bombing abortion clinics.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

"The idea that the earth is flat is foolishness to non-flatists, but for flatists it makes sense and has cognitive value in their lives."

...exactly the same with Evolutionists ... and they are just as Scientifically laughable ... as the Flat Earthers!!!

...I once had great fun in a pub ... as a Flat Earther engaged in a heated discussion with a Spontaneous Evolutionist ... they both laughed at each other ... and I laughed at the two of them!!!

...the irony was that each guy thought that I was laughing at the other guy!!!:pac::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...some 'Dinosaurs' WERE warm-blooded MAMMALS!!!

Mickeroo
For **** sake.That's all I can say.

...is this some new kind of Evolutionist scientific terminology???!!!!!

philologos

JimiTime wrote: »

Fair point, but thats between you and your arch-nemesis. I don't know the history of the war so can't comment:)

I don't regard Sam as my arch-nemesis in any sense of the word :pac:

J C

PDN wrote: »

A hypothetical murderer, given that no cases actually exist (except in the fevered imagination of fundamentalist atheists) of Christians killing people by bombing abortion clinics.

...quite correct!!!

....and quite ironic when one considers the MILLIONS of people murdered by Atheist regimes like Stalin's Russia and Pol Pot's Cambodia ... I wouldn't have 'gone there' at all, if was an Atheist on this forum ... but then, perhaps it is their 'fallen state' that makes them continuously stagger into the 'firing line' by making points that even a 5-year old would metaphorically 'roast' them on!!!!!:D

robindch

PDN wrote: »

A hypothetical murderer, given that no cases actually exist (except in the fevered imagination of fundamentalist atheists) of Christians killing people by bombing abortion clinics.

According to Wikipedia, there have been 619 reported bomb threats and 41 documented bombings of abortion clinics in the USA. Documentation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Arson.2C_bombing.2C_and_property_crime

Some of the stories are well-known, but the one about the fevered catholic priest ramming a clinic with his car, then hopping out and producing an axe to preserve life was certainly new to me. As was the comment by the first abortion-clinic bombers that their attack on Christmas day, 1978, was "a gift to Jesus" -- an odd comment for a non-christian to make.

One can only wonder that not a single one of these 41 bomb attacks have resulted in death -- it seems that gun attacks are what work for the militant anti-abortionist.

.

robindch

J C wrote: »

JC wrote:

Not without a touch of pride, I must say that I also participated in the first known-successful attempt to drink the bar dry at the Yanggakdo_Hotel in Pyongyang.

...is this how Atheists take a 'moral' stance on the gross injustices inflcted by their fellow Atheists on other fellow Atheists??!!:eek::(

As you ask, no of course not, as you well know.

Generally, during the one-week trip, we kept moral outrage in check -- there's little point in registering disgust at a dangerous totalitarian regime when you are in their control. They'd heard it all before too, and frankly, it would have been as much fun as arguing with a creationist and we were on holiday.

Moral outrage overflowed only once when we were in a school, where we were presented with the history teaching facility and provided with a long, dull, pious lecture on the sanctity of the two Kims, the inerrancy of their teachings and the state of perfection reached by the country's administration, by a tendentious bore we were told was the school headmistress. At the end of which, a highly intelligent Pakistani guy, working in the USA as an economics professor, exploded and bollocked the schoolmarm out of it, articulating the disgust we all felt, and which was never far below the surface.

BTW, the most reliable reports indicate that Kim the Elder who set up the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was brought up as a fundamentalist christian in the Russia's Far East town of Khabarovsk.

Sam Vimes

J C, I had written a response to you but I have realised that no purpose is served by talking to you. The last thing I will point out is that the term "spontaneous evolution" is simply your deliberate misunderstanding of evolution, that's not what anyone says is happening. As long as you keep using that term this debate will go on in perpetuity because it shows that you have no understanding of the thing you're rejecting

PDN wrote: »

A hypothetical murderer, given that no cases actually exist (except in the fevered imagination of fundamentalist atheists) of Christians killing people by bombing abortion clinics.

And if they don't kill people to do it then blowing stuff up is fine then :rolleyes:

Besides which, you're missing the point. I brought up christians bombing abortion clinics only to point out that bringing that up is as ridiculous as calling atheists militant or, as you have just done, fundamentalist.

You see how annoyed you're getting at the fact that I brought it up? That's how annoyed I get at the use of the terms militant and fundamentalist, or bringing up North Korea, and for exactly the same reason as you. North Korea is not the way it is because of atheism, it's that way because KJI is bat **** crazy. And christians do not bomb abortion clinics because of christianity, they do it because these partricular people are bat **** crazy

J C

robindch wrote: »

As you ask, no of course not, as you well know.

Generally, during the one-week trip, we kept moral outrage in check -- there's little point in registering disgust at a dangerous totalitarian regime when you are in their control. They'd heard it all before too, and frankly, it would have been as much fun as arguing with a creationist and we were on holiday.

...so you went there (which they will take as an indication of support) ... and you either couldn't be bothered or else 'chickened out' in making any criticism of what you saw!!!!:eek:

robindch wrote: »

....we were presented with the history teaching facility and provided with a long, dull, pious lecture on the sanctity of the two Kims, the inerrancy of their teachings and the state of perfection reached by the country's administration, by a tendentious bore we were told was the school headmistress

.... sounds like a lecture that I recently attended on Darwin (by an Evolutionist)
...so, did she also go on (and on) about the 'Evolution of Mud into Man' Myth as well??!!!;):pac::):D

robindch wrote: »

....
BTW, the most reliable reports indicate that Kim the Elder who set up the Democratic People's Republic of Korea was brought up as a fundamentalist christian in the Russia's Far East town of Khabarovsk.

...Handsome IS as Handsome DOES!!!!:D

... so anyway, here we have an example of an Atheist (your good self) supporting the tourist industry into one of the most repressive Atheistic Regimes in the world ... and the best he could do when it came to moral indignation was to YAWN !!!!:eek::D

...would that mean that if you were to meet some of Stalin's Atheists, at the time of the Gulags, you would fall asleep entirely???!!!!:rolleyes:

J C

Sam Vimes wrote:

J C, I had written a response to you but I have realised that no purpose is served by talking to you.

...probably best not to embarass yourself (and Evolution) any further!!!!:):D

Sam Vimes wrote:

....The last thing I will point out is that the term "spontaneous evolution" is simply your deliberate misunderstanding of evolution, that's not what anyone says is happening. As long as you keep using that term this debate will go on in perpetuity because it shows that you have no understanding of the thing you're rejecting

...the floor is yours to explain how inanimate molecules spontaneously burst into life and progressed to producing Men!!!

...or are you now accepting that it was an Act of Intelligent Creation????

J C

I see that we have now had over 400,000 hits since the thread started!!!!!:pac::):D:eek:

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...probably best not to embarass yourself (and Evolution) any further!!!!:):D

:rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

...the floor is yours to explain how inanimate molecules spontaneously burst into life and progressed to producing Men!!!

It's been done but you just keep repeating your questions that show you have no concept of what evolution is. You're asking us to prove things happened the way you think we're saying they did but we never said they happened that way (eg spontaneous proteins)

To be honest J C if you can't see your misunderstanding by now you're never going to.

pts

Sam Vimes wrote: »

:rolleyes:


It's been done but you just keep repeating your questions that show you have no concept of what evolution is. You're asking us to prove things happened the way you think we're saying they did but we never said they happened that way (eg spontaneous proteins)

To be honest J C if you can't see your misunderstanding by now you're never going to.

I don't see the point in waisting your time with this guy Sam. He still doesn't seem to comprehend the difference between how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter (Abiogenesis) and how we have such diversity of life (Evolution) and that Abiogenesis != Evolution.

kiffer

J C wrote: »

...so, did she also go on (and on) about the 'Evolution of Mud into Man' Myth as well??!!!;):pac::):D

We've said it before ... we prefer "Goo to You!" has a more personal note to it like...
You could even go for "Ooze to Yous" if you want to make it a bit Dublin it up a bit and make it plural.

J C wrote: »

...probably best not to embarass yourself (and Evolution) any further!!!!:):D

Silly J C, you can't embarrass evolution. It's a process not a person.

...the floor is yours to explain how inanimate molecules spontaneously burst into life and progressed to producing Men!!!

...or are you now accepting that it was an Act of Intelligent Creation????

You keep using the words spontaneous and spontaneously... This is causing some additional conflict here... would you mind clarifying what you mean by spontaneous in this case...

Turtwig

JC,

If someone, who followed Christianity murders someone, then s/he is no longer classed as a true Christian. Well, us non-believers have morals too, and if one of us were to murder someone in the name of our,er, non-believership(errr?) then we'd disown them from our branch of the tree, like ye do yours.

Militant implies,vile violence,murderous,abusive behaviour : comparing some of the people who are actually trying to discuss something with you to the behaviour of IL Kim of DPRK is downright disrespectful!

It also seems to me, you are using the traditional meaning of the word atheist, well I got some bad,actually awful,perhaps terrifying news for you:

You are in fact an Atheist!
Atheist towards to the Ancient Greeks Gods,Ancient Egyptians Gods, Muslims God,Hindus Gods,Mayans Gods,Babylonians Gods etc etc

That's of course, if you continue with that archaic meaning. Surely, now you'll admit that languages evolve and words change? If you refer to some folk as militant atheist then they are equally entitled to refer to you as one too.

robindch

J C wrote: »

if you were to meet some of Stalin's Atheists, at the time of the Gulags, you would fall asleep entirely???!!!!

I doubt it, since I suspect I would have been one of his earlier victims and, therefore, almost certainly dead.

BTW, whether it's with the creationist ring-leaders or with the DPRK military, interacting with moral and intellectual corruption does not imply support.