Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
The Christian elephant in the room
Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
Free Lunch
<f...@nutballville.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>
Because fundamentalists are too self-centered to allow natural processes
to have created them. They think they are so special that only God could
have made them.
cata
Why would a GOD create a MAN via an APE?
silly free lunch.
The Christian elephant in the room
Because that is at least a natural progression, rather than a 10 minute
magic trick which is anything but natural.
What makes you think it was the latter? Was God in a hurry or something?
Besides, there is also a chance that advanced ETs came and used the ape as
an already adapted genetic stock to cross with themselves and create us.
Quite a number of things could have happened.
--
Religion is for those who are afraid of the responsibility of seeking and
deciding for themselves what is true and what
isn't. They want the comfort and ease of a big organisation known as a
religion to decide the truth for them and put it all
into a neat and tidy package. When you don't utilise the
spiritual/intelligent powers placed inside you and seek out the
truth for yourself, you place yourself at the mercy of deceivers.
gabriel
:
: Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
:
Or another question to consider: Why would He?
Consider: God can do whatever He wants, and if He chose to create
the universe and the Earth in six days, why wouldn't He? If He
chose to create mankind in His image, why wouldn't He?
Why would Jesus (God) lie and say He created man in His image in
the beginning?
Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
flesh?
Some that are against Christianity understand better:
==========
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c003.html
What difference does it make whether one believes the world was
created or evolved? Can't one embrace Christianity and Evolution?
An outspoken evolutionist answered this question in the American
Atheist magazine with the following reply:
"Christianity is - must be! - totally committed to the
special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must
fight with its full might against the theory of evolution. And
here is why.
In Romans we read that 'sin entered the world through one
man, and through sin - death, and thus death has spread through
the whole human race because everyone has sinned.' (5:12)
�the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is
predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he
and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed?
Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by
death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.
Even a high school student knows enough about evolution
to know that nowhere in the evolutionary description of our
origins does there appear an Adam or an Eve or an Eden or a
forbidden fruit. Evolution means a development from one form to
the next to meet the ever-changing challenges from an
ever-changing nature. There is no fall from a previous state of
sublime perfection.
Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is
reduced to a man with a mission on a wrong planet!"
Did this opponent of Christianity understand the issues more
clearly than most Christians? How important it is that we as
Christians be consistent in our thinking. We must accept all of
the Bible as God's Word. In it God says what He means and He
means what He says.
We are reminded of the words of the apostle John who wrote, �The
word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory,
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace
and truth� (John 1:14).
No, Christ was not merely a man with a mission on the wrong
planet. He was truly God incarnate of a love mission to the right
planet. �For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish,
but have everlasting life� (John 3:16).
==========
The Christian elephant in the room
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>
>
> Or another question to consider: Why would He?
>
Because its the natural way.
>
> Consider: God can do whatever He wants, and if He chose to create
> the universe and the Earth in six days, why wouldn't He? If He
> chose to create mankind in His image, why wouldn't He?
>
You don't know how God chose to do it.
The Bible is a simplified creation story passed down generation to
generation.
Its not God's personal log of events. The Creator doesn't keep written logs
of
what he does, as much as you would like him to.
Humans do however, and they get things wrong a lot.
>
> Why would Jesus (God) lie and say He created man in His image in
> the beginning?
>
Jesus didn't say that for a start.
But that part is not in dispute here.
Only the time factor is.
>
> Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
> 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
> that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
> female,
> 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
> mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
> flesh?
>
>
> Some that are against Christianity understand better:
>
> ==========
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c003.html
>
> What difference does it make whether one believes the world was
> created or evolved? Can't one embrace Christianity and Evolution?
> An outspoken evolutionist answered this question in the American
> Atheist magazine with the following reply:
>
>
> "Christianity is - must be! - totally committed to the
> special creation as described in Genesis,
>
Why?
>
> and Christianity must
> fight with its full might against the theory of evolution. And
> here is why.
>
> In Romans we read that 'sin entered the world through one
> man, and through sin - death, and thus death has spread through
> the whole human race because everyone has sinned.' (5:12)
>
Old dogma.
>
> .the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is
> predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he
> and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed?
> Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by
> death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.
>
> Even a high school student knows enough about evolution
> to know that nowhere in the evolutionary description of our
> origins does there appear an Adam or an Eve or an Eden or a
> forbidden fruit. Evolution means a development from one form to
> the next to meet the ever-changing challenges from an
> ever-changing nature. There is no fall from a previous state of
> sublime perfection.
>
The Adam and Eve story is just that, a story for the people.
>
> Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is
> reduced to a man with a mission on a wrong planet!"
>
What a silly statement. It show a complete lack of understanding of his
mission.
>
> Did this opponent of Christianity understand the issues more
> clearly than most Christians? How important it is that we as
> Christians be consistent in our thinking.
>
> We must accept all of the Bible as God's Word.
>
Why on earth would we need to do that?
>
> In it God says what He means and He
> means what He says.
>
> We are reminded of the words of the apostle John who wrote, "The
> word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory,
> the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace
> and truth" (John 1:14).
>
> No, Christ was not merely a man with a mission on the wrong
> planet. He was truly God incarnate of a love mission to the right
> planet. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
> begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish,
> but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
> ==========
--
Religion is for those who are afraid of the responsibility of seeking and
deciding for themselves what is the truth and what isn't. They want the
Masked Avenger
even sillier cata ...... man didn't descend from apes ....... humans ARE
apes ....... but what you really meant was Humans and Chimps and
Gorillas ( modern Primates ) all descended from a common ancestor ....
which has since gone extinct ..... and as you no doubt are aware, we
don't even need fossils anymore to show this ....... the study of DNA in
genomes has conclusively demonstrated this ......
--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
Does Schr�dinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
gabriel
room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
: gabriel wrote:
: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
: > room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
: >
: >>
: >> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
: >>
: >
: > Or another question to consider: Why would He?
: >
:
: Because its the natural way.
It's not natural that populations of fish once upon a time
evolved over generations eventually into people.
And yes, there are those who deny the existence of God, and try
to come up with a "nature only" way of where people came from.
And that's why they come up with such ridiculous stories.
:
: >
: > Consider: God can do whatever He wants, and if He chose to create
: > the universe and the Earth in six days, why wouldn't He? If He
: > chose to create mankind in His image, why wouldn't He?
: >
:
: You don't know how God chose to do it.
: The Bible is a simplified creation story passed down generation to
: generation.
: Its not God's personal log of events. The Creator doesn't keep written logs
: of
: what he does, as much as you would like him to.
How do you know?
: Humans do however, and they get things wrong a lot.
Correct - like believing that once upon a time populations of
fish evolved over generations into people.
:
: >
: > Why would Jesus (God) lie and say He created man in His image in
: > the beginning?
: >
:
: Jesus didn't say that for a start.
How do you know?
: But that part is not in dispute here.
: Only the time factor is.
:
: >
: > Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
: > 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
: > that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
: > female,
: > 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
: > mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
: > flesh?
: >
: >
: > Some that are against Christianity understand better:
: >
: > ==========
: > http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c003.html
: >
: > What difference does it make whether one believes the world was
: > created or evolved? Can't one embrace Christianity and Evolution?
: > An outspoken evolutionist answered this question in the American
: > Atheist magazine with the following reply:
: >
: >
: > "Christianity is - must be! - totally committed to the
: > special creation as described in Genesis,
: >
:
: Why?
Keep reading.
:
: >
: > and Christianity must
: > fight with its full might against the theory of evolution. And
: > here is why.
: >
: > In Romans we read that 'sin entered the world through one
: > man, and through sin - death, and thus death has spread through
: > the whole human race because everyone has sinned.' (5:12)
: >
:
: Old dogma.
How do you know?
:
: >
: > .the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is
: > predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he
: > and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed?
: > Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by
: > death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.
: >
: > Even a high school student knows enough about evolution
: > to know that nowhere in the evolutionary description of our
: > origins does there appear an Adam or an Eve or an Eden or a
: > forbidden fruit. Evolution means a development from one form to
: > the next to meet the ever-changing challenges from an
: > ever-changing nature. There is no fall from a previous state of
: > sublime perfection.
: >
:
: The Adam and Eve story is just that, a story for the people.
How do you know?
:
: >
: > Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is
: > reduced to a man with a mission on a wrong planet!"
: >
:
: What a silly statement. It show a complete lack of understanding of his
: mission.
Prove it.
:
: >
: > Did this opponent of Christianity understand the issues more
: > clearly than most Christians? How important it is that we as
: > Christians be consistent in our thinking.
: >
: > We must accept all of the Bible as God's Word.
: >
:
: Why on earth would we need to do that?
Because if you try to dismiss any of it as lies, that means
people can dismiss any and all of it for the exact same reason:
because they want to.
:
: >
: > In it God says what He means and He
: > means what He says.
: >
: > We are reminded of the words of the apostle John who wrote, "The
: > word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory,
: > the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace
: > and truth" (John 1:14).
: >
: > No, Christ was not merely a man with a mission on the wrong
: > planet. He was truly God incarnate of a love mission to the right
: > planet. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
: > begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish,
: > but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
: > ==========
Satan has been doing what you try to do here: dismiss God's Word
as lies. And instead you want to believe in the fairy tale that
populations of fish evolved over generations into people. The
most unnatural story ever told.
The fish to man version of evolution (evolutionism for short -
the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations,
hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science.
Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other
origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or
testable/verifiable.
Evolutionists will make claims about the fossil record supporting
evolution. No, it's only their BELIEFS of what those fossils and
dead bones means to them (and what they want it to mean to
everyone else) that "supports" evolution. The beliefs themselves
remain unobservable and un-testable/un-verifiable!
Evolutionists will claim that their beliefs lead to predictions
as proof it's science. So using that new definition of science
(that any prediction made by a belief automatically qualifies
said belief as science), creation by God qualifies as science as
it leads to more accurate predictions as seen in homology, DNA
similarity, the Cambrian Explosion, DNA being meaningfully
encoded information and the ability for it to be meaningfully
decoded and acted upon, and more. But of course evolutionists
will then return to the actual truth of what science really is
and refute that notion with "Show a single observation or
test/verification of God creating anything." Bingo.
The observable, testable and verifiable truth that populations of
[flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies] even if
they are in rare cases a slightly different species of [flies]
(but still [flies]!), which we call Speciation, remains intact
and is a far cry from what evolutionists believe: that
populations of [flies] will produce, over generations, animals
that are clearly no longer [flies] at all! (Same holds true no
matter what animal you replace with [flies] in the previous
sentence). Much like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings
are clearly no longer fish at all, even though they believe all
of those things and most everything else evolved from populations
of fish and worse over generations once upon a time.
But in the end, although no origin scientific claim really can
qualify as science (and it's either ignorance or outright
dishonesty to claim it is), it's logically undeniable we were
created. Just like a building is proof of a builder, more so if
it's a building that's so advanced in its design it can adapt to
its environment, remove dirt particles on a continuous basis, and
even produce more buildings just like itself over time. Not to
mention computer and computer programs are proof of a designer -
just like DNA, which is encoded instructions and the ability for
those instructions to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon in
near miraculous ways. The only faith part: was it the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the heavenly Father of our Lord and
Savior, Jesus Christ? Or was it aliens? From a faith standpoint
on either choice, the choice is obvious.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>:
>: Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>:
>
>Or another question to consider: Why would He?
The evidence shows that there was and is evolution. Who are you to
question this?
>Consider: God can do whatever He wants, and if He chose to create
>the universe and the Earth in six days, why wouldn't He? If He
>chose to create mankind in His image, why wouldn't He?
But the evidence is clear that He did not make that choice. Your
pseudo-literalist interpretation of the Bible is _false_.
>Why would Jesus (God) lie and say He created man in His image in
>the beginning?
What evidence do you have that Jesus meant it as you are interpreting.
Most Christians belong to denominations that reject young earth
creationism because YEC is proven to be false by physical evidence.
>Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
> 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
>that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
>female,
> 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
>mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
>flesh?
I see no reason at all to accept your interpretation.
>Some that are against Christianity understand better:
>
>==========
>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c003.html
>
>What difference does it make whether one believes the world was
>created or evolved? Can't one embrace Christianity and Evolution?
>An outspoken evolutionist answered this question in the American
>Atheist magazine with the following reply:
>
How cute. Christian Answers cannot defend their own claims so they need
to take a quotation from some atheists. I wonder why they didn't look at
what most large Christian denominations say.
>
> "Christianity is - must be! - totally committed to the
>special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must
>fight with its full might against the theory of evolution. And
>here is why.
>
> In Romans we read that 'sin entered the world through one
>man, and through sin - death, and thus death has spread through
>the whole human race because everyone has sinned.' (5:12)
>
> �the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is
>predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he
>and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed?
>Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by
>death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.
>
> Even a high school student knows enough about evolution
>to know that nowhere in the evolutionary description of our
>origins does there appear an Adam or an Eve or an Eden or a
>forbidden fruit. Evolution means a development from one form to
>the next to meet the ever-changing challenges from an
>ever-changing nature. There is no fall from a previous state of
>sublime perfection.
>
> Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is
>reduced to a man with a mission on a wrong planet!"
>
I guess you don't see how much you are being mocked here.
>
>Did this opponent of Christianity understand the issues more
>clearly than most Christians? How important it is that we as
>Christians be consistent in our thinking. We must accept all of
>the Bible as God's Word. In it God says what He means and He
>means what He says.
>
>We are reminded of the words of the apostle John who wrote, �The
>word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory,
>the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace
>and truth� (John 1:14).
>
>No, Christ was not merely a man with a mission on the wrong
>planet. He was truly God incarnate of a love mission to the right
>planet. �For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
>begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish,
>but have everlasting life� (John 3:16).
Please provide the evidence that the Bible is accurate about theology.
It has already been shown to be highly unreliable about science and
history and most people on earth do not accept the doctrines that are
claimed to be from the Bible.
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:06:17 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>: gabriel wrote:
>: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>: > room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>: >
>: >>
>: >> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>: >>
>: >
>: > Or another question to consider: Why would He?
>: >
>:
>: Because its the natural way.
>
>It's not natural that populations of fish once upon a time
>evolved over generations eventually into people.
It's quite natural for you to intentionally remain unwilling to learn
anything about evolution.
>And yes, there are those who deny the existence of God, and try
>to come up with a "nature only" way of where people came from.
>And that's why they come up with such ridiculous stories.
This is not about denying the existence of God. You teach a doctrine
that is clearly wrong. The physical evidence that you are wrong is
overwhelming. The vast majority of Christians belong to denominations
that understand that and reject your false doctrines.
...
duke
<f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
He did after he created. Evolution is not creation.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
gabriel
<coot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: cata wrote:
: > On Dec 5, 7:14 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
: >> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the room"
: >> <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
: >> Because fundamentalists are too self-centered to allow natural processes
: >> to have created them. They think they are so special that only God could
: >> have made them.
: >
: > Why would a GOD create a MAN via an APE?
: >
: > silly free lunch.
: >
:
: even sillier cata ...... man didn't descend from apes ....... humans ARE
: apes
But I thought apes evolved from populations of fish over
generations. So aren't we fish?
Sorry, but calling us apes doesn't make us apes.
: ....... but what you really meant was Humans and Chimps and
: Gorillas ( modern Primates ) all descended from a common ancestor ....
A belief.
: which has since gone extinct ..... and as you no doubt are aware, we
: don't even need fossils anymore to show this ....... the study of DNA in
: genomes has conclusively demonstrated this ......
No, your belief about what we see in DNA is the only thing that
"shows" this.
Meanwhile, show a single test case of the version of evolution
you believe in. For example, populations of [flies] evolving,
over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer [flies]
at all. You can replace [flies] with any animal you wish.
Fact is the fish to man version of evolution is not observable,
not testable, not verifiable - not science.
George Chalkin
> created or evolved? Can't one embrace Christianity and Evolution?
> An outspoken evolutionist answered this question in the American
> Atheist magazine with the following reply:
>
contradiction that science reveals. Evolution makes no claims beyond
the fact that the contradiction between creationism and evolution does
in fact exist, and that creationism has no basis for truth.
>
The implications of the theory of evolution are obvious, if one cannot
accept creationism in the face of the brute facts that support
evolution, then all of the other claims that the Christian religion
makes have no basis in fact either, and therefore have no truth value
to support any further doctrine.
>
If accepting of evolution, there is then no truth to the notion that
angels control the universe, that God appoints leaders that all people
must completely and blindly, trust and obey, and that anyone who
doesn't believe in the Christian doctrine as established or revised by
the godly revelation of the perfect authors is somehow defective and
worthy of death and hell.
>
On Dec 5, 7:11 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>
> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
> :
> : Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
> :
>
> Or another question to consider: Why would He?
>
> Consider: God can do whatever He wants, and if He chose to create
> the universe and the Earth in six days, why wouldn't He? If He
> chose to create mankind in His image, why wouldn't He?
>
> Why would Jesus (God) lie and say He created man in His image in
> the beginning?
>
> Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
> 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read,
> that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
> female,
> 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
> mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
> flesh?
>
> Some that are against Christianity understand better:
>
> ==========http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c003.html
Free Lunch
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:09:39 +1100, Masked Avenger
><coot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>: cata wrote:
>: > On Dec 5, 7:14 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>: >> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the room"
>: >> <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>: >>
>: >>
>: >>
>: >>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>: >> Because fundamentalists are too self-centered to allow natural processes
>: >> to have created them. They think they are so special that only God could
>: >> have made them.
>: >
>: > Why would a GOD create a MAN via an APE?
>: >
>: > silly free lunch.
>: >
>:
>: even sillier cata ...... man didn't descend from apes ....... humans ARE
>: apes
>
>But I thought apes evolved from populations of fish over
>generations. So aren't we fish?
We are in the same clade.
>Sorry, but calling us apes doesn't make us apes.
No, physiology makes us apes.
>: ....... but what you really meant was Humans and Chimps and
>: Gorillas ( modern Primates ) all descended from a common ancestor ....
>
>A belief.
Evidence tells us this.
>: which has since gone extinct ..... and as you no doubt are aware, we
>: don't even need fossils anymore to show this ....... the study of DNA in
>: genomes has conclusively demonstrated this ......
>
>No, your belief about what we see in DNA is the only thing that
>"shows" this.
You are really unwilling to deal with scientific evidence. Why is that?
Why is it so important to you that your doctrine be accepted despite the
fact that the physical evidence shows us that your doctrine is false?
What religion demands that you lie to us and teach false doctrines?
>Meanwhile, show a single test case of the version of evolution
>you believe in. For example, populations of [flies] evolving,
>over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer [flies]
>at all. You can replace [flies] with any animal you wish.
Compare your genes to the genes of any other organism on earth and you
can see how you are related.
>Fact is the fish to man version of evolution is not observable,
>not testable, not verifiable - not science.
You are lying to us here. The tests have been done. Your claim lost.
The Christian elephant in the room
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:06:17 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>> gabriel wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>>> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or another question to consider: Why would He?
>>>
>>
>> Because its the natural way.
>
> It's not natural that populations of fish once upon a time
> evolved over generations eventually into people.
>
But it is natural that it all happen over a long period of time.
>
> And yes, there are those who deny the existence of God, and try
> to come up with a "nature only" way of where people came from.
> And that's why they come up with such ridiculous stories.
>
I haven't heard that.
>>
>>>
>>> Consider: God can do whatever He wants, and if He chose to create
>>> the universe and the Earth in six days, why wouldn't He? If He
>>> chose to create mankind in His image, why wouldn't He?
>>>
>>
>> You don't know how God chose to do it.
>> The Bible is a simplified creation story passed down generation to
>> generation.
>> Its not God's personal log of events. The Creator doesn't keep
>> written logs of
>> what he does, as much as you would like him to.
>
> How do you know?
>
Because I am one of many who study God's nature.
>
>> Humans do however, and they get things wrong a lot.
>
> Correct - like believing that once upon a time populations of
> fish evolved over generations into people.
>
I'm referring to believing that the earth was flat and the center of the
universe etc. etc.
You seem to have a one track mind involving fish for some reason.
>>
>>>
>>> Why would Jesus (God) lie and say He created man in His image in
>>> the beginning?
>>>
>>
>> Jesus didn't say that for a start.
>
> How do you know?
>
Jesus doesn't say that anywhere.
Kalkidas
news:hfesq1$8nd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
Whether or not He "would" is really irrelevant. The fact is He didn't.
Anyway, evolution, or Darwinism, by definition is a non-creative process. It
is random variation filtered through natural selection.
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
>"The Christian elephant in the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in message
>news:hfesq1$8nd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>
>Whether or not He "would" is really irrelevant. The fact is He didn't.
Since the evidence shows that there is and has been evolution, we must
presume that you are claiming that there is evidence that God had
nothing to do with it. That might be a challenge.
>Anyway, evolution, or Darwinism, by definition is a non-creative process. It
>is random variation filtered through natural selection.
You really have no idea what evolution is or how it works. You would
show wisdom not to make claims about things you do not understand.
Masked Avenger
taking advice from a creationist is laughable ....... fact is ..... you
lot are a laughing stock to most of the educated world ...... silly
primitive beliefs, held by silly primitive minds ( i.e. you and your
fellow creationists ) are very funny to watch ........ but unfortunately
held by too many uneducated yokels ........
if you have any arguments with what I have said ....... take it up with
the final arbiter on things Scientific .......... the National Academy
of Sciences .......
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
the same science that gives you the very computer and Internet that you
are using right now ...... says you are wrong on Evolution ..... I don't
expect to change your opinion on this, as I know very well from your
posting history that you are a scientific Luddite ...... when you can
come up any evidence that 'your' theory of creation is correct ( and I
know you can't ....there simply are no scientifically credible peer
reviewed papers that do ) I will stand corrected .... until then ....
you and your ilk Gabriel will continue to be classed as 'scum' .......
gabriel
<coot...@yahoo.com> wrote:
This string of insults does not make up for the fact that you
cannot provide a test case of your version of evolution - proof
that your beliefs are not science. Care to prove otherwise?
Please present such a test case.
:
: if you have any arguments with what I have said ....... take it up with
: the final arbiter on things Scientific .......... the National Academy
: of Sciences .......
:
: http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
:
: the same science that gives you the very computer and Internet that you
: are using right now ...... says you are wrong on Evolution
Sorry but the belief that populations of fish evolving once upon
a time into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings has no
bearing or effect whatsoever on what is actual science - nor the
Internet or computers.
: ..... I don't
: expect to change your opinion on this, as I know very well from your
: posting history that you are a scientific Luddite ...... when you can
: come up any evidence that 'your' theory of creation is correct
No origins theory can qualify as science, including the fish to
man version of evolution and creation.
So again, the fact that you can not show a single test case of
your version of evolution only proves this fact: the fish to man
(or molecules to man as some call it) version of evolution is
just a belief and does not even qualify as science.
You can disprove that at any time by providing an observation or
a test-case of this fish to man version of evolution. But see, no
one can. One can only believe in it.
: ( and I
: know you can't ....there simply are no scientifically credible peer
: reviewed papers that do ) I will stand corrected .... until then ....
: you and your ilk Gabriel will continue to be classed as 'scum' .......
Such vicious hatred, unfortunately, is all many evolutionists
like yourself can bring to the table when confronted and call on
the fact that your beliefs do not qualify as science. If you want
evidence for the real truth, ask yourself why you have to resort
to such nasty hatred to defend what is supposed to be "science" -
observable, testable, verifiable.
gladys swager
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 "The Christian elephant in the room" wrote:
>
> >Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>
> He did after he created. Evolution is not creation.
>
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
Creation. Why It Matters
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3056/
Gladys Swager
ilbe...@gmail.com
ANSWER : http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp
ilbe...@gmail.com
> <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
> >Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
> Because fundamentalists are too self-centered to allow natural processes
> to have created them. They think they are so special that only God could
> have made them.
A total misconception ; natural processes cannot make a 206 bone /
600 muscle Human Being with a Brain informational capacity
outnumbering the U.S. Library of Congress regardless of how much time,
chance, materials, explosions, or chanting the natural processes
make ! Undirected Raw Materials dont have the willpower to make
PERSONAL traits especially abstract thought . Neither do explosions
of hydrogen and helium . ONLY personal life creates personal life as
modern Biology proves , and the 'natural process mantra' is nothing
but a most irrational and immature excuse ever invented to maintain
ones pride of never acknowledging the Creator because he would be a
fly in the ointment of ones lifestyle fun. Its just that simple .
Atheism is a convenient scapegoat which only some 6-8 percent of the
worlds population is willing to play because it requires full self
deception on a willful basis , and continually. But alas...not even a
proclaimed atheist is a real atheist, for, no one has the kind of
rediculous faith required to be an actual one. I played the game for
10 years myself before needing to bail out of the charade.
The Christian elephant in the room
> On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 "The Christian elephant in the room" wrote:
>>
>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>
>> He did after he created. Evolution is not creation.
>>
> Creation Compromises
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>
The opening note on that website is an absolute barrel of laughs. Where did
you get this classic?
Editor's note: Creation Ministries International (CMI) stands firmly on the
authority of Scripture, which entails that Creation occurred in six
normal-length days about 6000 years ago, and a planet-wide Flood followed
about 1600 years later. Many Christians who disbelieve the straightforward
interpretation of Genesis admit that they are motivated mainly by 'science',
or rather the uniformitarian interpretations of science. This page deals
with only conservative compromisers; outright liberals are addressed in Q&A:
Countering the Critics: Alleged contradictions
>
> Creation. Why It Matters
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3056/
>
> Gladys Swager
--
The Christian elephant in the room
> "The Christian elephant in the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in
> message news:hfesq1$8nd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>
> Whether or not He "would" is really irrelevant. The fact is He didn't.
>
And you know this how exactly?
>
> Anyway, evolution, or Darwinism, by definition is a non-creative
> process. It is random variation filtered through natural selection.
>
Who says evolution asserts that creation was the result of randomness?
Creation likely came about by interacting energetic forces forming patterns
over time.
But no one knows precisely how everything was created so its rather
dishonest and pretentious to preach about it.
Wild Bill
"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f0f01ed-30e0-4935...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
ANSWER :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/theistic_evolution.asp
This website is another barrel of laughs!
The Christian elephant in the room
> On Dec 5, 7:14 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>> ec
>> Because fundamentalists are too self-centered to allow natural
>> processes to have created them. They think they are so special that
>> only God could have made them.
>
> A total misconception ; natural processes cannot make a 206 bone /
> 600 muscle Human Being with a Brain informational capacity
> outnumbering the U.S. Library of Congress regardless of how much time,
> chance, materials, explosions, or chanting the natural processes
> make ! Undirected Raw Materials dont have the willpower to make
> PERSONAL traits especially abstract thought . Neither do explosions
> of hydrogen and helium .
>
How do you know what can and cannot happen?
How do you know what processes were involved? Maybe cosmic consciousness
energy did the forming.
>
> ONLY personal life creates personal life as
> modern Biology proves , and the 'natural process mantra' is nothing
> but a most irrational and immature excuse ever invented to maintain
> ones pride of never acknowledging the Creator because he would be a
> fly in the ointment of ones lifestyle fun. > Its just that simple .
>
Isn't believing that there's a humanoid god in the sky who conjured
everything up in a week using magic tricks more immature?
And what do you have against fun? Why do you want the Creator to be so
legalistic and judgemental?
>
> Atheism is a convenient scapegoat which only some 6-8 percent of the
> worlds population is willing to play because it requires full self
> deception on a willful basis , and continually.
>
How does atheism entail more self deception than religion?
And Christianity involves almost as much convenience as atheism because all
you do is buy a Bible and make no further effort towards seeking the truth
and spiritual development.
>
> But alas...not even a
> proclaimed atheist is a real atheist, for, no one has the kind of
> rediculous faith required to be an actual one. I played the game for
> 10 years myself before needing to bail out of the charade.
>
Explain how atheism requires lots of faith.
Devils Advocaat
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 20:09:39 +1100, Masked Avenger
>
How about you produce the source which provided you with your claim
that a single cell contains more information than the entire
Encyclopedia Britannica?
Gregory A Greenman
> On Dec 5, 7:14=A0pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the room"
> > <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
> >
> >
> >
> > >Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
> > ec
> > Because fundamentalists are too self-centered to allow natural processes
> > to have created them. They think they are so special that only God could
> > have made them.
>
> A total misconception ; natural processes cannot make a 206 bone /
> 600 muscle Human Being with a Brain informational capacity
> outnumbering the U.S. Library of Congress regardless of how much time,
> chance, materials, explosions, or chanting the natural processes
> make !
Well I don't know if your numbers are right, especially the one
about the "informational capacity" of the brain, but yeah, natural
processes do make that. In fact, it happens every day. A man and a
woman have sex - no god involved. The woman gets pregnant - again,
an entirely natural process. She carries an embryo/fetus for nine
months - still no magic necessary. Then she gives birth to a new
human being. During this entire process, there is no god
involvement, no hocus pocus. It is entirely natural. And this
happens many, many times every day.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Masked Avenger
>: >
>: > : which has since gone extinct ..... and as you no doubt are aware,
>: > : we don't even need fossils anymore to show this ....... the study
>: > : of DNA in genomes has conclusively demonstrated this ......
>: >
>: > No, your belief about what we see in DNA is the only thing that
>: > "shows" this.
>: >
>: > Meanwhile, show a single test case of the version of evolution
>: > you believe in. For example, populations of [flies] evolving,
>: > over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer [flies]
>: > at all. You can replace [flies] with any animal you wish.
>: >
>: > Fact is the fish to man version of evolution is not observable,
>: > not testable, not verifiable - not science.
>:
>: taking advice from a creationist is laughable ....... fact is .....
>: you lot are a laughing stock to most of the educated world ......
>: silly primitive beliefs, held by silly primitive minds ( i.e. you and
>: your fellow creationists ) are very funny to watch ........ but
>: unfortunately held by too many uneducated yokels ........
>
> This string of insults does not make up for the fact that you
> cannot provide a test case of your version of evolution - proof
> that your beliefs are not science. Care to prove otherwise?
> Please present such a test case.
>
there's plenty of evidence of speciation ....... you just refuse to
accept it ....... talk origins, National Academy of Sciences will get
you started ...... I know you will just hand wave these away ...... and
this is why you get insults .....over time we just get fed up with your
prehistoric attitude and blatent pig ignorance ....... you are ignorant
and proud of it ....... all that is left is to mock you ....
>
>:
>: if you have any arguments with what I have said ....... take it up
>: with the final arbiter on things Scientific .......... the National
>: Academy of Sciences .......
>:
>: http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
>:
>: the same science that gives you the very computer and Internet that
>: you are using right now ...... says you are wrong on Evolution
>
> Sorry but the belief that populations of fish evolving once upon
> a time into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings has no
> bearing or effect whatsoever on what is actual science - nor the
> Internet or computers.
>
>
you've had this misconception of Evolution 'fish to man' explained to
you more times than I can count ...... you refuse to learn and cling
desperately to your Bronze Age myths ....... If the National Academy of
Sciences says Evolution is Science ........ then it IS science .......
they are the final arbiters on this ....not you or your fairy tales
......
more fool you ......
>: ..... I don't
>: expect to change your opinion on this, as I know very well from your
>: posting history that you are a scientific Luddite ...... when you can
>: come up any evidence that 'your' theory of creation is correct
>
> No origins theory can qualify as science, including the fish to
> man version of evolution and creation.
>
> So again, the fact that you can not show a single test case of
> your version of evolution only proves this fact: the fish to man
> (or molecules to man as some call it) version of evolution is
> just a belief and does not even qualify as science.
>
> You can disprove that at any time by providing an observation or
> a test-case of this fish to man version of evolution. But see, no
> one can. One can only believe in it.
don't need to ...... it is accepted fact by every legitimate Scientific
organisation in the WORLD !!! whereas your pathetic Fairy Tale is
laughed at by educated folk ........ sucks to be you .....
>
>: ( and I
>: know you can't ....there simply are no scientifically credible peer
>: reviewed papers that do ) I will stand corrected .... until then ....
>: you and your ilk Gabriel will continue to be classed as 'scum'
>: .......
>
> Such vicious hatred, unfortunately, is all many evolutionists
> like yourself can bring to the table when confronted and call on
> the fact that your beliefs do not qualify as science. If you want
> evidence for the real truth, ask yourself why you have to resort
> to such nasty hatred to defend what is supposed to be "science" -
> observable, testable, verifiable.
I see you are trying to divert ....... nothing unusual there ..... if
you have some Scientific peer reviewed papers that can support Creation
please let us all know ........ I can direct you to THOUSANDS of such
papers supporting Evolution ....... until you do that you have lost this
argument Gabbers .....
Free Lunch
>On Dec 5, 7:14�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the room"
>> <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>
>>
>> >Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>> ec
>> Because fundamentalists are too self-centered to allow natural processes
>> to have created them. They think they are so special that only God could
>> have made them.
>
>A total misconception ; natural processes cannot make a 206 bone /
>600 muscle Human Being with a Brain informational capacity
>outnumbering the U.S. Library of Congress regardless of how much time,
>chance, materials, explosions, or chanting the natural processes
>make !
So you assert. Since you are making a positive assertion that natural
processes cannot do something, it is up to you to provide the evidence.
By the way, where did you get the idea that the brain has more
informational capacity tha the Library of Congress. A citation would be
useful.
> Undirected Raw Materials dont have the willpower to make
>PERSONAL traits especially abstract thought .
So you claim. Show your evidence.
> Neither do explosions
>of hydrogen and helium .
Do you mean something here?
> ONLY personal life creates personal life as
>modern Biology proves , and the 'natural process mantra' is nothing
>but a most irrational and immature excuse ever invented to maintain
>ones pride of never acknowledging the Creator because he would be a
>fly in the ointment of ones lifestyle fun. Its just that simple .
Again, you make claims that we know you cannot back up. You are just
simply that dishonest. You are simply a liar who needs to tell lies to
support your false doctrines. That is why you can never back up your
claims with evidence.
>Atheism is a convenient scapegoat which only some 6-8 percent of the
>worlds population is willing to play because it requires full self
>deception on a willful basis , and continually. But alas...not even a
>proclaimed atheist is a real atheist, for, no one has the kind of
>rediculous faith required to be an actual one. I played the game for
>10 years myself before needing to bail out of the charade.
I don't believe you. You have a track record of profound dishonesty.
Free Lunch
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Do you realize that the folks at Creation Ministries are flat-out liars?
They hide behind their interpretation of the Bible to persuade you to
swallow the lies they tell you.
Free Lunch
<ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Dec 5, 6:10�pm, "The Christian elephant in the room"
Ken Ham makes a lot of money selling his Young Earth Creationist lies to
credulous fools like you. He is a liar. You are repeating his lies. He
came to the United States because there were more suckers around willing
to give him money to repeat his lies about science.
duke
>On Dec 7, 1:44�am, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 "The Christian elephant in the room" wrote:
>>
>> >Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>
>> He did after he created. �Evolution is not creation.
>>
>Creation Compromises
>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000 years old. At
least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
Creation Ministries International (CMI) stands firmly on the authority of
Scripture, which entails that Creation occurred in six normal-length days about
6000 years ago, and a planet-wide Flood followed about 1600 years later. Many
Christians who disbelieve the straightforward interpretation of Genesis admit
that they are motivated mainly by �science�, or rather the uniformitarian
interpretations of science.
The Dukester, American-American
duke
<f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>gladys swager wrote:
>> On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 "The Christian elephant in the room" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>
>>> He did after he created. Evolution is not creation.
>>>
>> Creation Compromises
>> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>>
>
>The opening note on that website is an absolute barrel of laughs. Where did
>you get this classic?
Some people are scared to death to deny some things, then turn around and deny
Jesus said certain things when they are clearly spelled out in Scripture. Gladys
must fall in that category.
>
>Editor's note: Creation Ministries International (CMI) stands firmly on the
>authority of Scripture, which entails that Creation occurred in six
>normal-length days about 6000 years ago, and a planet-wide Flood followed
>about 1600 years later. Many Christians who disbelieve the straightforward
>interpretation of Genesis admit that they are motivated mainly by 'science',
>or rather the uniformitarian interpretations of science. This page deals
>with only conservative compromisers; outright liberals are addressed in Q&A:
>Countering the Critics: Alleged contradictions
The Dukester, American-American
duke
CMI and their followers are to be laughed at.
Kalkidas
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> "The Christian elephant in the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in
>> message news:hfesq1$8nd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>
>> Whether or not He "would" is really irrelevant. The fact is He didn't.
>>
>
> And you know this how exactly?
Because darwinian evolution never happened. The scientific evidence refutes
it.
>> Anyway, evolution, or Darwinism, by definition is a non-creative
>> process. It is random variation filtered through natural selection.
>>
>
> Who says evolution asserts that creation was the result of randomness?
> Creation likely came about by interacting energetic forces forming
> patterns over time.
I think you are misusing the term "creation". Creation requires a creator,
or else it is not creation.
> But no one knows precisely how everything was created so its rather
> dishonest and pretentious to preach about it.
The "no one knows" assertion applies only to the one making it.
> Religion is for those who are afraid of the responsibility of seeking and
> deciding for themselves what is the truth and what isn't. They want the
> comfort and ease of a big organisation known as a religion to decide the
> truth for them and put it all into a neat and tidy package. When you don't
> utilise the spiritual/intelligent powers placed inside you and seek out
> the
> truth for yourself, you place yourself at the mercy of deceivers.
Blah blah blah, same old "organized religion is bad" crap. Get a life.
Free Lunch
alt.talk.creationism:
>"The Christian elephant in the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in message
>news:hfhr67$gr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>> "The Christian elephant in the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in
>>> message news:hfesq1$8nd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>
>>> Whether or not He "would" is really irrelevant. The fact is He didn't.
>>>
>>
>> And you know this how exactly?
>
>Because darwinian evolution never happened. The scientific evidence refutes
>it.
Show us this evidence.
Tell us why all of the scientists working on evolutionary biology are
wrong.
>>> Anyway, evolution, or Darwinism, by definition is a non-creative
>>> process. It is random variation filtered through natural selection.
>>>
>>
>> Who says evolution asserts that creation was the result of randomness?
>> Creation likely came about by interacting energetic forces forming
>> patterns over time.
>
>I think you are misusing the term "creation". Creation requires a creator,
>or else it is not creation.
Yet there is no evidence for a creator of any sort.
>> But no one knows precisely how everything was created so its rather
>> dishonest and pretentious to preach about it.
>
>The "no one knows" assertion applies only to the one making it.
We do know that Young Earth Creationism is false. We do know that Old
Earth Creationism that rejects evolution is false. We do know that
Intelligent Design is a meaningless phrase uttered by religious zealots
who are trying to hide their religious doctrine behind pseudo-scientific
claims.
>> Religion is for those who are afraid of the responsibility of seeking and
>> deciding for themselves what is the truth and what isn't. They want the
>> comfort and ease of a big organisation known as a religion to decide the
>> truth for them and put it all into a neat and tidy package. When you don't
>> utilise the spiritual/intelligent powers placed inside you and seek out
>> the
>> truth for yourself, you place yourself at the mercy of deceivers.
>
>Blah blah blah, same old "organized religion is bad" crap. Get a life.
Creationists who reject evolution are teaching false doctrines. They
call God a trickster and are claiming that He intentionally misleads us.
Wild Bill
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:dhhqh5pf5tsknc1o0...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:23:08 -0800 (PST), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 "The Christian elephant in the room" wrote:
>>>
>>> >Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>
>>> He did after he created. Evolution is not creation.
>>>
>>Creation Compromises
>>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>
> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000 years old.
> At
> least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
Correction Duke! There are indeed people out there who are stupid enough!
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:dhhqh5pf5tsknc1o0...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:23:08 -0800 (PST), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 "The Christian elephant in the room" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>>
>>>> He did after he created. Evolution is not creation.
>>>>
>>>Creation Compromises
>>>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>>
>> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000 years old.
>> At
>> least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
>
>Correction Duke! There are indeed people out there who are stupid enough!
Well, I know, but I was hoping the answer was no. The "yes" comes from those,
the ones I know, that are scared to death to even suggest that every word in the
bible is not literally true.
Ken
you have to be the dumbest,
most ignorant person I've run across in that time"
Lorentz
One reason is that the process of natural selection is extremely
cruel. Under the assumption that God is an entity that loves his
Creations, and has scruples consistent with what the kinder humans
call justice, one would assume that he his Creation technique would
have either mercy or justice built into it. Mercy: creatures are
either not hurt or destroyed in any painful way. Justice: All
creatures get equal treatment given according to their moral
behavior.
For a merciful and just God, there could not be no randomness
with respect to function. A just God would not punish animals for any
sin human beings made.
This follows a picture of God that came later than some of the
books of the Old Testament. Alas, the God of the Bible seems almost as
cruel and arbitrary as anything in TOE. Many of his orders and
decisions, when given a cold reading, don't seem either merciful or
just.
So I guess the answer is no. There is no reason the God of the
Bible does not use evolution. It just so happens that the Book of
Genesis provides you with a hypothetical description of how God
created the universe. A cold reading does not indicate evolution. The
literal reading of Genesis is the only reason to think that God
doesn't use evolution.
The Christian elephant in the room
> "The Christian elephant in the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in
> message news:hfhr67$gr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>> "The Christian elephant in the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in
>>> message news:hfesq1$8nd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>
>>> Whether or not He "would" is really irrelevant. The fact is He
>>> didn't.
>>
>> And you know this how exactly?
>
> Because darwinian evolution never happened. The scientific evidence
> refutes it.
>
Is that your best reason? I asked you how you *know*.
What science refutes it? The preachy fear based crud from the creationist
science websites?
How much do you or preachers know about evolution?
How much do you or preachers know about science?
How much do you or preachers know about how creation truly happened?
How do you verify the truth of the creation story?
How much have you actually researched science/evolution instead of just
listening to the Christian apologists?
You're only attacking what you don't like and not seeking out what could
really be true.
I think you creationists have a strong motivation to cling to your doctrine,
so you just reject everything that disagrees with it.
>
>>> Anyway, evolution, or Darwinism, by definition is a non-creative
>>> process. It is random variation filtered through natural selection.
>>>
>>
>> Who says evolution asserts that creation was the result of
>> randomness? Creation likely came about by interacting energetic
>> forces forming patterns over time.
>
> I think you are misusing the term "creation". Creation requires a
> creator, or else it is not creation.
>
The evidence actually shows that everything in the universe was formed. The
word creation was an old word that was translated from the ancient language.
It was originally used for people who had very primitive understandings and
believed that God was a humanoid living in the heavens (sky / universe).
Its time to update our concepts.
>
>> But no one knows precisely how everything was created so its rather
>> dishonest and pretentious to preach about it.
>
> The "no one knows" assertion applies only to the one making it.
>
Meaning what?
>
>> Religion is for those who are afraid of the responsibility of
>> seeking and deciding for themselves what is the truth and what
>> isn't. They want the comfort and ease of a big organisation known as
>> a religion to decide the truth for them and put it all into a neat
>> and tidy package. When you don't utilise the spiritual/intelligent
>> powers placed inside you and seek out the
>> truth for yourself, you place yourself at the mercy of deceivers.
>
> Blah blah blah, same old "organized religion is bad" crap. Get a life.
>
Its very true.
Do you think that in this world you are going to find the real truth without
actually making an effort to find it?
You're kidding yourself if you do. Why don't you want to take
responsibility for your own spiritual development?
Jesus is not going to do your spiritual development for you. He can't. You
have to because its your life. He's already done his own.
--
The Christian religion is alone credited with such ridiculous concepts as
substitutionary guilt and substitutionary
punishment. No other religion believes such lunacies. This is what happens
when you let yourself be educated by a religion
that relies entirely on an old book that teaches that its a crime to think
for yourself, and that you must worship your
loving creator to please him so he won't throw you into a fire forever.
The Christian elephant in the room
You mean the Bible fanatics who believe that the Bible is infallible?
But don't you believe that the RCC's doctrines are infallible?
Sounds just as scared to me.
--
gladys swager
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
> >Creation Compromises
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>
> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000 years old. At
> least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
>
So you do not believe that God is omnipotent = all-powerful;
omniscient = all-knowing; eternal. almighty?
> Creation Ministries International (CMI) stands firmly on the authority of
> Scripture, which entails that Creation occurred in six normal-length days about
> 6000 years ago, and a planet-wide Flood followed about 1600 years later. Many
> Christians who disbelieve the straightforward interpretation of Genesis admit
> that they are motivated mainly by ‘science’, or rather the uniformitarian
> interpretations of science.
>
But it is a matter of who is correct.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
Darwin, himself said, that both sides should be given, but that is not
want
the Theistic Evolutionists want. Jesus could change water into wine
in
a moment of time, He caused the lame to walk, the dead to be restored
to life. As the Word (John 1 : 1) He created the universe and all
things in it.
It was then that Science came in as the organisms adjusted to life on
earth.
There is change within a species. But the fossil record does not
support
change from one specie sto another species,
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/
Gladys Swager.
George Chalkin
seperate, yet unequal creation, you get into a whole host of nasty
political issues.
>
Chalkin
>
Wild Bill
"gladys swager" <gsw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fb7884b-0bc5-4a45...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 8, 5:17 am, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, gladys swager wrote:
> >On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
> >Creation Compromises
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>
> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000 years old.
> At
> least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
>
So you do not believe that God is omnipotent = all-powerful;
omniscient = all-knowing; eternal. almighty?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him a God?
George Chalkin
> omniscient = all-knowing; eternal. almighty?
>
> Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing?
> Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing?
> Then where does evil come from?
> Is he neither able nor willing?
> Then why call him a God?
>
>
What you are attempting to describe is all of the worst instincts of
human nature. Do me a favor and make a check on the studies that
scientists have done on over-crowded rat populations and how the males
become hyper-aggressive and self-destructive to the entire community
when over-crowded, and then make a comparison to similar human
populations. And then tell me that the same parallel doesn't apply to
humans, especially if you exacerbate the situation with oppresive and
unlawful surveillance, and then describe to me how innocent victims of
this oppression might react, and you need not site any historical
references, I know them already.
>
But you could also make the same historical comparison to a similar
culture that has tried this political strategy already. Do you think
that even with modern "gadgets" or so-called technology, such a
government is viable? -Chalkin.
>
On Dec 7, 7:31 pm, "Wild Bill" <bilsg...@daytonwa.net> wrote:
> "gladys swager" <gswa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
The Christian elephant in the room
> On Dec 8, 5:17 am, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
>
>>> Creation Compromises
>>> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>>
>> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000 years
>> old. At least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
>>
> So you do not believe that God is omnipotent = all-powerful;
> omniscient = all-knowing; eternal. almighty?
>
What relevance does omnipotent etc. have to how *long* ago he formed the
earth?
This is what I don't understand about Christian thinking.
--
The skeptic/debunker's motto - If I haven't seen it and its even
slightly difficult for me to believe then there's no way it can
possibly exist and I must stomp on anyone who says otherwise because
they're crazy.
Masked Avenger
> On Dec 8, 5:17 am, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
>
>>> Creation Compromises
>>> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000 years old. At
>> least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
>>
> So you do not believe that God is omnipotent = all-powerful;
> omniscient = all-knowing; eternal. almighty?
of course not ....... that's just Bronze Age mythology ....... besides
... which 'god' are you talking about ? there are hundreds of them .....
and thousands of different versions of the religions that surround them
..... the only thing they have in common is that none of them can agree
with any of the others on which doctrine is the 'true' religion .....
I mean ..... even Christians are continually fighting over this and
you'd think if 'god' was so bloody fantastic he would have made his
message a bit clearer ........
the Mormons, the hundreds of different Baptists,the Jehovah Witnesses
...... the list goes on ....... they all call the others heretic .....
makes 'god' look a bit stupid don't you think ?
>
>> Creation Ministries International (CMI) stands firmly on the authority of
>> Scripture, which entails that Creation occurred in six normal-length days about
>> 6000 years ago, and a planet-wide Flood followed about 1600 years later. Many
>> Christians who disbelieve the straightforward interpretation of Genesis admit
>> that they are motivated mainly by �science�, or rather the uniformitarian
>> interpretations of science.
>>
> But it is a matter of who is correct.
> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/
one thing is certain ....... Creation Ministries International is dead
wrong ...... the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old .... Science can
demonstrate this very clearly ...... there was NO great flood ........
Science can demonstrate this very clearly .......... evolution happened
and is continuing to happen ....... Science can demonstrate this very
clearly
>
> Darwin, himself said, that both sides should be given, but that is not
> want
> the Theistic Evolutionists want.
What Darwin said on this subject is irrelevant ....... there is only one
side here ..... Science can show clearly what Evolution is all about, it
has the evidence ....... religion has NO evidence that stands up to
scrutiny ......
Jesus could change water into wine
> in
> a moment of time, He caused the lame to walk, the dead to be restored
> to life. As the Word (John 1 : 1) He created the universe and all
> things in it.
this is just mythology , there is no evidence that any of it is true
........ in fact, there is no evidence that Jesus even existed .......
at all ......
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
> It was then that Science came in as the organisms adjusted to life on
> earth.
> There is change within a species. But the fossil record does not
> support
> change from one specie sto another species,
have you been living in a cave ??? .....there is mountains of evidence
that shows exactly that ......
start here :
http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/fossil.html
--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
Does Schr�dinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
duke
<f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:06:48 -0800, "Wild Bill"
>> <bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:dhhqh5pf5tsknc1o0...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:23:08 -0800 (PST), gladys swager
>>>> <gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 "The Christian elephant in the room" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He did after he created. Evolution is not creation.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Creation Compromises
>>>>> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>>>>
>>>> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000 years
>>>> old. At
>>>> least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
>>>
>>> Correction Duke! There are indeed people out there who are stupid
>>> enough!
>>
>> Well, I know, but I was hoping the answer was no. The "yes" comes
>> from those, the ones I know, that are scared to death to even suggest
>> that every word in the bible is not literally true.
>You mean the Bible fanatics who believe that the Bible is infallible?
??? The bible is .......... infallible? Shirley, you mean that the Pope is
infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of faith and morals.
>But don't you believe that the RCC's doctrines are infallible?
They are?????????
>Sounds just as scared to me.
You need to see a doctor.
duke
>So you do not believe that God is omnipotent = all-powerful;
>omniscient = all-knowing; eternal. almighty?
>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
>Then he is not omnipotent.
>Is he able, but not willing?
>Then he is malevolent.
>Is he both able and willing?
>Then where does evil come from?
>Is he neither able nor willing?
>Then why call him a God?
Because he created the universe and all in it including mankind. Creation is
his game, God ALL-mighty is his name
And he gave man free choice - now you know where evil came from.
duke
<f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>gladys swager wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 5:17 am, duke wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>>>> On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
>>
>>>> Creation Compromises
>>>> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>>>
>>> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000 years
>>> old. At least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
>>>
>> So you do not believe that God is omnipotent = all-powerful;
>> omniscient = all-knowing; eternal. almighty?
>What relevance does omnipotent etc. have to how *long* ago he formed the
>earth?
>This is what I don't understand about Christian thinking.
Christians don't talk about "omnipotent". That's an atheist's choice of words.
duke
>On Dec 5, 7:10�pm, "The Christian elephant in the room"
><f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>
> One reason is that the process of natural selection is extremely
>cruel.
God created, then turned it all over to evolution. And hence one does find the
cruelty of evolution such as evil, disease, pestilence, war, hatred, etc..
Wild Bill
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:31:16 -0800, "Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net>
> wrote:
>
>>So you do not believe that God is omnipotent = all-powerful;
>>omniscient = all-knowing; eternal. almighty?
>
>>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
>>Then he is not omnipotent.
>>Is he able, but not willing?
>>Then he is malevolent.
>>Is he both able and willing?
>>Then where does evil come from?
>>Is he neither able nor willing?
>>Then why call him a God?
>
> Because he created the universe and all in it including mankind. Creation
> is
> his game, God ALL-mighty is his name
You're not thinking very straight this morning, are you Duke? Your God,
being omniscient and all, knew ahead of time that his creation would go
sour. According to you, that's good? According to my thinking, that's
malevolent.
>
> And he gave man free choice - now you know where evil came from.
No, since your God knew ahead of time what Adam & Eve's choices and actions
would be, they in effect had no choice at all and your so-called almighty
god is fully responsible for unleashing evil onto the world. Your Bible even
states that God creates both good and evil--look it up, I'm too lazy!
Anyway, you can't have it both ways, Duke. Make up your mind!
Wild Bill
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:31:13 -0800 (PST), Lorentz <drose...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 5, 7:10 pm, "The Christian elephant in the room"
>><f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>
>> One reason is that the process of natural selection is extremely
>>cruel.
>
> God created, then turned it all over to evolution. And hence one does
> find the
> cruelty of evolution such as evil, disease, pestilence, war, hatred, etc..
Which means he is totally responsible for this entire mess. Good thing he
doesn't actually exist!
The Christian elephant in the room
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:52:01 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:06:48 -0800, "Wild Bill"
>>> <bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 "The Christian elephant in the room" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He did after he created. Evolution is not creation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Creation Compromises
>>>>>> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000
>>>>> years old. At
>>>>> least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
>>>>
>>>> Correction Duke! There are indeed people out there who are stupid
>>>> enough!
>>>
>>> Well, I know, but I was hoping the answer was no. The "yes" comes
>>> from those, the ones I know, that are scared to death to even
>>> suggest that every word in the bible is not literally true.
>
>> You mean the Bible fanatics who believe that the Bible is infallible?
>
> ??? The bible is .......... infallible? Shirley, you mean that the
> Pope is infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of faith and
> morals.
>
Why would you believe that the Pope is infallible? Who told you that?
How can a human be infallible just because he's speaking about faith etc?
Does he have a little switch that he flips to the on position or something?
>
>> But don't you believe that the RCC's doctrines are infallible?
>
> They are?????????
>
Then why do you believe their doctrines so passionately?
>
>> Sounds just as scared to me.
>
> You need to see a doctor.
>
If you're not scared then you can easily leave the church right now.
The Christian elephant in the room
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:20:21 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>> gladys swager wrote:
>>> On Dec 8, 5:17 am, duke wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, gladys swager wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Creation Compromises
>>>>> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>>>>
>>>> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000 years
>>>> old. At least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
>>>>
>>> So you do not believe that God is omnipotent = all-powerful;
>>> omniscient = all-knowing; eternal. almighty?
>
>> What relevance does omnipotent etc. have to how *long* ago he formed
>> the earth?
>> This is what I don't understand about Christian thinking.
>
> Christians don't talk about "omnipotent". That's an atheist's choice
> of words.
>
I've heard preachers talk about God's omnipotence.
duke
<f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
The Holy Spirit guides his words re faith and morals.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:q9ish5l4tf310dv90...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 19:31:16 -0800, "Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>So you do not believe that God is omnipotent = all-powerful;
>>>omniscient = all-knowing; eternal. almighty?
>>
>>>Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
>>>Then he is not omnipotent.
>>>Is he able, but not willing?
>>>Then he is malevolent.
>>>Is he both able and willing?
>>>Then where does evil come from?
>>>Is he neither able nor willing?
>>>Then why call him a God?
>>
>> Because he created the universe and all in it including mankind. Creation
>> is his game, God ALL-mighty is his name
>You're not thinking very straight this morning, are you Duke?
Straight thinking is exactly why I said what I did.
> Your God,
>being omniscient and all, knew ahead of time that his creation would go
>sour. According to you, that's good? According to my thinking, that's
>malevolent.
But you're not too bright.
>> And he gave man free choice - now you know where evil came from.
>No, since your God knew ahead of time what Adam & Eve's choices and actions
>would be, they in effect had no choice at all
When you got out of bed this morning, did you do what you freely wanted to do,
or not. And, if it was a bad thing to do, you had only yourself to blame.
duke
<f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
Cool.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:jgish5hhaqltv9eqq...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:31:13 -0800 (PST), Lorentz <drose...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 5, 7:10 pm, "The Christian elephant in the room"
>>><f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>
>>> One reason is that the process of natural selection is extremely
>>>cruel.
>>
>> God created, then turned it all over to evolution. And hence one does
>> find the
>> cruelty of evolution such as evil, disease, pestilence, war, hatred, etc..
>
>Which means he is totally responsible for this entire mess. Good thing he
>doesn't actually exist!
If you turned out bad, you have only yourself to blame.
Wild Bill
> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:11:59 -0800, "Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:jgish5hhaqltv9eqq...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:31:13 -0800 (PST), Lorentz <drose...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Dec 5, 7:10 pm, "The Christian elephant in the room"
>>>><f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>>
>>>> One reason is that the process of natural selection is extremely
>>>>cruel.
>>>
>>> God created, then turned it all over to evolution. And hence one does
>>> find the
>>> cruelty of evolution such as evil, disease, pestilence, war, hatred,
>>> etc..
>>
>>Which means he is totally responsible for this entire mess. Good thing he
>>doesn't actually exist!
>
> If you turned out bad, you have only yourself to blame.
For once you got something exactly right, Duke! Since your god doesn't
exist, we're all responsible for our own actions...good going, Duke!
Wild Bill
If your god didn't know ahead of time, yes. If he did, no. C'mon Duke, I
realise that you're not exactly the brightest crayon in the box, but do
enroll in a good logic class, will ya?!
The Christian elephant in the room
How can you possibly know what the Holy Spirit is doing with the Pope?
The truth is some Catholic priests told you this silliness, plus you read it
in the Catholic Bible and decided to believe it.
Cite one thing that any Pope has said that was divine and infallible. You
won't find any. The proof is in the pudding.
It is only a fool who believes everything that a large religious
organisation says, but completely ignores all its actual fruits.
--
Christians believe that God is omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient, yet
they strangely also believe that God is a humanoid. They can't see that the
two concepts are completely incompatible. The reason for this is that
Christian don't think at all. They just believe stuff. If you try to present
them with the truth that God is an all pervading cosmic consciousness then
they will straight away reject it just because the Bible doesn't say that,
even though it is totally congruent with the concept of omnipotence,
omnipresence and omniscience. A humanoid can never have those attributes no
matter how far you stretch your imagination.
duke
<f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>>> ??? The bible is .......... infallible? Shirley, you mean that the
>>>> Pope is infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of faith
>>>> and morals.
>>> Why would you believe that the Pope is infallible?
>> The Holy Spirit guides his words re faith and morals.
>How can you possibly know what the Holy Spirit is doing with the Pope?
Mat 16:17, 19.
>The truth is some Catholic priests told you this silliness, plus you read it
>in the Catholic Bible and decided to believe it.
All bibles say the same thing.
>Cite one thing that any Pope has said that was divine and infallible. You
>won't find any.
Only 2 infallible statements in history: The Immaculate Conception and the
Assumption of Mary.
These two are firm 1st century AD professions by Christians but not found in the
written word. So the Pope dogmatized them.
> The proof is in the pudding.
>It is only a fool who believes everything that a large religious
>organisation says, but completely ignores all its actual fruits.
Ah, but those actual facts are nice to me.
duke
Either you did or you didn't. It was your choice. God didn't interfere. You
simply make a free decision.
>C'mon Duke, I
>realise that you're not exactly the brightest crayon in the box, but do
>enroll in a good logic class, will ya?!
I run the school.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:ha60i55ea636gu9js...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:11:59 -0800, "Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:jgish5hhaqltv9eqq...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:31:13 -0800 (PST), Lorentz <drose...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Dec 5, 7:10 pm, "The Christian elephant in the room"
>>>>><f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>>>
>>>>> One reason is that the process of natural selection is extremely
>>>>>cruel.
>>>>
>>>> God created, then turned it all over to evolution. And hence one does
>>>> find the
>>>> cruelty of evolution such as evil, disease, pestilence, war, hatred,
>>>> etc..
>>>
>>>Which means he is totally responsible for this entire mess. Good thing he
>>>doesn't actually exist!
>>
>> If you turned out bad, you have only yourself to blame.
>
>For once you got something exactly right, Duke! Since your god doesn't
>exist, we're all responsible for our own actions...good going, Duke!
God gave us the free choice to commit spiritual suicide.
Wild Bill
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah!
Wild Bill
Bullshit, Duke! Your mythical god knew ahead of time that his creation would
go sour...he went ahead anyway and regretted it later. That makes him
malevolent.
duke
>
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:ha60i55ea636gu9js...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:11:59 -0800, "Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>news:jgish5hhaqltv9eqq...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 15:31:13 -0800 (PST), Lorentz <drose...@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Dec 5, 7:10 pm, "The Christian elephant in the room"
>>>>><f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>>>
>>>>> One reason is that the process of natural selection is extremely
>>>>>cruel.
>>>>
>>>> God created, then turned it all over to evolution. And hence one does
>>>> find the
>>>> cruelty of evolution such as evil, disease, pestilence, war, hatred,
>>>> etc..
>>>
>>>Which means he is totally responsible for this entire mess. Good thing he
>>>doesn't actually exist!
>>
>> If you turned out bad, you have only yourself to blame.
>
>For once you got something exactly right, Duke! Since your god doesn't
>exist, we're all responsible for our own actions...good going, Duke!
And since he does, all you're doing is committing spiritual suicide. And to
think that an eternity in the fires of hell is strictly volunteer.
Wild Bill
You're just too funny, Duke! Pathetic, but funny nonetheless.
Ralph
There is no hell, you stupid POS.
The Christian elephant in the room
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:01:20 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> ??? The bible is .......... infallible? Shirley, you mean that
>>>>> the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of
>>>>> faith and morals.
>
>>>> Why would you believe that the Pope is infallible?
>>> The Holy Spirit guides his words re faith and morals.
>
>> How can you possibly know what the Holy Spirit is doing with the
>> Pope?
>
> Mat 16:17, 19.
>
What about those verses?
>
>> The truth is some Catholic priests told you this silliness, plus you
>> read it in the Catholic Bible and decided to believe it.
>
> All bibles say the same thing.
>
Not really. The RCC one in particular is different.
>
>> Cite one thing that any Pope has said that was divine and
>> infallible. You won't find any.
>
> Only 2 infallible statements in history: The Immaculate Conception
> and the Assumption of Mary.
>
> These two are firm 1st century AD professions by Christians but not
> found in the written word. So the Pope dogmatized them.
>
Only two? How were their truths verified?
And what was the great value to society in those statements?
>
>> The proof is in the pudding.
>> It is only a fool who believes everything that a large religious
>> organisation says, but completely ignores all its actual fruits.
>
> Ah, but those actual facts are nice to me.
>
Facts? Since when does religion work with facts?
They are beliefs. That's what religion is about.
So do these beliefs make you happy? Or is it just fear of ending up in hell
that makes you hold on to them?
duke
<f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:01:20 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> ??? The bible is .......... infallible? Shirley, you mean that
>>>>>> the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of
>>>>>> faith and morals.
>>
>>>>> Why would you believe that the Pope is infallible?
>>>> The Holy Spirit guides his words re faith and morals.
>>
>>> How can you possibly know what the Holy Spirit is doing with the
>>> Pope?
>>
>> Mat 16:17, 19.
>What about those verses?
Ok...........this conversation is clearly over your head.
>>> The truth is some Catholic priests told you this silliness, plus you
>>> read it in the Catholic Bible and decided to believe it.
>> All bibles say the same thing.
>Not really. The RCC one in particular is different.
Where?
>>> Cite one thing that any Pope has said that was divine and
>>> infallible. You won't find any.
>> Only 2 infallible statements in history: The Immaculate Conception
>> and the Assumption of Mary.
>> These two are firm 1st century AD professions by Christians but not
>> found in the written word. So the Pope dogmatized them.
>Only two? How were their truths verified?
Solid beliefs dating back to 33AD.
>And what was the great value to society in those statements?
You're so far out of this discussion, there's no point in continuing.
duke
>Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah!
You don't get to do what you want to do, and did do?
duke
God knows which one of us will go sour and which ones won't. It's our choice.
duke
I'm only telling you what God said. Don't believe me if you don't want to. It's
your volunteering.
duke
How do you know?
The Christian elephant in the room
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:31:51 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:01:20 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>>> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> ??? The bible is .......... infallible? Shirley, you mean that
>>>>>>> the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of
>>>>>>> faith and morals.
>>>
>>>>>> Why would you believe that the Pope is infallible?
>>>>> The Holy Spirit guides his words re faith and morals.
>>>
>>>> How can you possibly know what the Holy Spirit is doing with the
>>>> Pope?
>>>
>>> Mat 16:17, 19.
>
>> What about those verses?
>
> Ok...........this conversation is clearly over your head.
>
Do you expect me to guess what your answer is from all those verses?
>
>>>> The truth is some Catholic priests told you this silliness, plus
>>>> you read it in the Catholic Bible and decided to believe it.
>>> All bibles say the same thing.
>
>> Not really. The RCC one in particular is different.
>
> Where?
>
Many places. There are some books that the RCC Bible has that the prots
don't or vise versa. I can't recall the exact details because its been a
while.
I suggest you do your own checking on this to get the full info.
I'm surprised you didn't know this, since you always act like you know
everything.
>
>>>> Cite one thing that any Pope has said that was divine and
>>>> infallible. You won't find any.
>
>>> Only 2 infallible statements in history: The Immaculate Conception
>>> and the Assumption of Mary.
>
>>> These two are firm 1st century AD professions by Christians but not
>>> found in the written word. So the Pope dogmatized them.
>
>> Only two? How were their truths verified?
>
> Solid beliefs dating back to 33AD.
>
What solid beliefs? How were the beliefs determined to be solid?
>
>> And what was the great value to society in those statements?
>
> You're so far out of this discussion, there's no point in continuing.
>
If there was some value to society then you should be able to say so without
much effort.
Me thinks you have no answers or realise they are insubstantial, or you're
just lazy and are attempting to cover it up.
duke
<f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>duke wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:31:51 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>
>>> duke wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:01:20 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>>>> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> ??? The bible is .......... infallible? Shirley, you mean that
>>>>>>>> the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of
>>>>>>>> faith and morals.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would you believe that the Pope is infallible?
>>>>>> The Holy Spirit guides his words re faith and morals.
>>>>
>>>>> How can you possibly know what the Holy Spirit is doing with the
>>>>> Pope?
>>>>
>>>> Mat 16:17, 19.
>>
>>> What about those verses?
>>
>> Ok...........this conversation is clearly over your head.
>Do you expect me to guess what your answer is from all those verses?
I expected more from you and asking what color a bible is.
>>>>> The truth is some Catholic priests told you this silliness, plus
>>>>> you read it in the Catholic Bible and decided to believe it.
>>>> All bibles say the same thing.
>>> Not really. The RCC one in particular is different.
>> Where?
>Many places. There are some books that the RCC Bible has that the prots
>don't or vise versa. I can't recall the exact details because its been a
>while.
In other words, you don't have a clue.
>I suggest you do your own checking on this to get the full info.
>I'm surprised you didn't know this, since you always act like you know
>everything.
Oh, I know the answer. But you don't have a clue what a bible is, so I see no
reason to open the discussion on that item.
>>>>> Cite one thing that any Pope has said that was divine and
>>>>> infallible. You won't find any.
>>>> Only 2 infallible statements in history: The Immaculate Conception
>>>> and the Assumption of Mary.
>>>> These two are firm 1st century AD professions by Christians but not
>>>> found in the written word. So the Pope dogmatized them.
>>> Only two? How were their truths verified?
>> Solid beliefs dating back to 33AD.
>What solid beliefs? How were the beliefs determined to be solid?
They were made of solid gold.
>>> And what was the great value to society in those statements?
>> You're so far out of this discussion, there's no point in continuing.
>If there was some value to society then you should be able to say so without
>much effort.
**I** can, but you are clueless.
>Me thinks you have no answers or realise they are insubstantial, or you're
>just lazy and are attempting to cover it up.
Wild Bill
No duke, you're just being an asshole again! He probably knows that there
are some books of the Apocaphra that are accepted and included in your
Catholic Bible and not in the Protestant version...you're just being a real
jerk.
>
>>I suggest you do your own checking on this to get the full info.
>>I'm surprised you didn't know this, since you always act like you know
>>everything.
>
> Oh, I know the answer. But you don't have a clue what a bible is, so I
> see no
> reason to open the discussion on that item.
Genuine, typical cop-out by the jerkster, dukester!
>
>>>>>> Cite one thing that any Pope has said that was divine and
>>>>>> infallible. You won't find any.
>
>>>>> Only 2 infallible statements in history: The Immaculate Conception
>>>>> and the Assumption of Mary.
>>>>> These two are firm 1st century AD professions by Christians but not
>>>>> found in the written word. So the Pope dogmatized them.
>
>>>> Only two? How were their truths verified?
>>> Solid beliefs dating back to 33AD.
>
>>What solid beliefs? How were the beliefs determined to be solid?
>
> They were made of solid gold.
Most intelligent people on these groups think duke is a fool. Every now and
then, he makes a statement like the above, and removes all doubt!
>
>>>> And what was the great value to society in those statements?
>>> You're so far out of this discussion, there's no point in continuing.
>
>>If there was some value to society then you should be able to say so
>>without
>>much effort.
>
> **I** can, but you are clueless.
Ain't duke funny...he really needs to go on the comedy circuit.
The Christian elephant in the room
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:01:20 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>> duke wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:31:51 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>>> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> duke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:01:20 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>>>>> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ??? The bible is .......... infallible? Shirley, you mean
>>>>>>>>> that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra on
>>>>>>>>> matters of faith and morals.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would you believe that the Pope is infallible?
>>>>>>> The Holy Spirit guides his words re faith and morals.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How can you possibly know what the Holy Spirit is doing with the
>>>>>> Pope?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mat 16:17, 19.
>>>
>>>> What about those verses?
>>>
>>> Ok...........this conversation is clearly over your head.
>
>> Do you expect me to guess what your answer is from all those verses?
>
> I expected more from you and asking what color a bible is.
>
Huh?
Why can't you just simply give me the verses you're referring to?
How hard can it be?
Unless of course you are full of crap.
>
>>>>>> The truth is some Catholic priests told you this silliness, plus
>>>>>> you read it in the Catholic Bible and decided to believe it.
>>>>> All bibles say the same thing.
>>>> Not really. The RCC one in particular is different.
>>> Where?
>
>> Many places. There are some books that the RCC Bible has that the
>> prots don't or vise versa. I can't recall the exact details because
>> its been a while.
>
> In other words, you don't have a clue.
>
I think its clear that its you who doesn't have a clue but you're trying to
cover it by trying to belittle me, as Catholics are notorious for doing.
The truth is, all you have is a bunch of hokey old beliefs which you cannot
explain rationally.
That means your religion is horse shite which my research has already
determined plenty of times over the last ten years.
>
>> I suggest you do your own checking on this to get the full info.
>> I'm surprised you didn't know this, since you always act like you
>> know everything.
>
> Oh, I know the answer. But you don't have a clue what a bible is, so
> I see no reason to open the discussion on that item.
>
I think you don't know.
You are full of hot air.
Typical arrogant, self-righteous Catholic. Worse in fact than most.
>
>>>>>> Cite one thing that any Pope has said that was divine and
>>>>>> infallible. You won't find any.
>
>>>>> Only 2 infallible statements in history: The Immaculate
>>>>> Conception and the Assumption of Mary.
>>>>> These two are firm 1st century AD professions by Christians but
>>>>> not found in the written word. So the Pope dogmatized them.
>
>>>> Only two? How were their truths verified?
>>> Solid beliefs dating back to 33AD.
>
>> What solid beliefs? How were the beliefs determined to be solid?
>
> They were made of solid gold.
>
Now you're really talking crap.
>
>>>> And what was the great value to society in those statements?
>>> You're so far out of this discussion, there's no point in
>>> continuing.
>
>> If there was some value to society then you should be able to say so
>> without much effort.
>
> **I** can, but you are clueless.
>
You can't, otherwise you would have by now.
You are the one who's clueless. All you have is a bunch of beliefs. You
think that beliefs equals knowledge.
They don't.
My ten years of research on advanced spiritual subjects has positively
determined that your religion is a sham.
The Christian elephant in the room
Which school did you run?
cata
<f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
> > "The Christian elephant in the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:hfhr67$gr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Kalkidas wrote:
> >>> "The Christian elephant in the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in
> >>> messagenews:hfesq1$8nd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>
> >>> didn't.
>
> >> And you know this how exactly?
>
> > Because darwinian evolution never happened. The scientific evidence
> > refutes it.
>
> Is that your best reason? I asked you how you *know*.
> What science refutes it? The preachy fear based crud from the creationist
> science websites?
> How much do you or preachers know about evolution?
> How much do you or preachers know about science?
> How much do you or preachers know about how creation truly happened?
> How do you verify the truth of the creation story?
> How much have you actually researched science/evolution instead of just
> listening to the Christian apologists?
> You're only attacking what you don't like and not seeking out what could
> really be true.
> I think you creationists have a strong motivation to cling to your doctrine,
> so you just reject everything that disagrees with it.
>
>
>
> >>> Anyway, evolution, or Darwinism, by definition is a non-creative
> >>> process. It is random variation filtered through natural selection.
>
> >> Who says evolution asserts that creation was the result of
> >> randomness? Creation likely came about by interacting energetic
> >> forces forming patterns over time.
>
> > I think you are misusing the term "creation". Creation requires a
> > creator, or else it is not creation.
>
> The evidence actually shows that everything in the universe was formed. The
> word creation was an old word that was translated from the ancient language.
> It was originally used for people who had very primitive understandings and
> believed that God was a humanoid living in the heavens (sky / universe).
> Its time to update our concepts.
>
>
>
> >> But no one knows precisely how everything was created so its rather
> >> dishonest and pretentious to preach about it.
>
> > The "no one knows" assertion applies only to the one making it.
>
> Meaning what?
>
>
>
> >> Religion is for those who are afraid of the responsibility of
> >> seeking and deciding for themselves what is the truth and what
> >> isn't. They want the comfort and ease of a big organisation known as
> >> a religion to decide the truth for them and put it all into a neat
> >> and tidy package. When you don't utilise the spiritual/intelligent
> >> powers placed inside you and seek out the
> >> truth for yourself, you place yourself at the mercy of deceivers.
>
> > Blah blah blah, same old "organized religion is bad" crap. Get a life.
>
> Its very true.
> Do you think that in this world you are going to find the real truth without
> actually making an effort to find it?
> You're kidding yourself if you do. Why don't you want to take
> responsibility for your own spiritual development?
> Jesus is not going to do your spiritual development for you. He can't. You
> have to because its your life. He's already done his own.
>
> --
> The Christian religion is alone credited with such ridiculous concepts as
> substitutionary guilt and substitutionary
> punishment. No other religion believes such lunacies. This is what happens
> when you let yourself be educated by a religion
> that relies entirely on an old book that teaches that its a crime to think
> for yourself, and that you must worship your
> loving creator to please him so he won't throw you into a fire forever.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You omit one detail. Science's conclusions are inferences based on
data because no one has ever seen things such as the universe form.
Inferences can vary depending on who is interpreting the data and are
both subjective and subject to change in lieu of new discoveries. data
can also be wrong.
Which means most of science's theories involving origins are not
validated.
By science's own standard for valid discovery, Evolution fails.
How about THAT
--
This message brought to you by....
The All Seeing I
Ralph
Crawl back in your cave assman.
gabriel
<george...@live.com> wrote:
> > What difference does it make whether one believes the world was
> > created or evolved? Can't one embrace Christianity and Evolution?
> > An outspoken evolutionist answered this question in the American
> > Atheist magazine with the following reply:
> >
> The reason that evolution and creationsim are incompatible is the
> contradiction that science reveals.
Science reveals no such contradiction. The belief that once upon
a time populations of fish evolved, over generations, eventually
into people is just a belief. Not a single observation nor test
case to show any such thing ever actually happening - just
reasons why they have faith that it did.
> Evolution makes no claims beyond
> the fact that the contradiction between creationism and evolution does
> in fact exist,
The fish to man version of evolution makes no claims that are
observable or can be shown in a test case to actually happen.
> and that creationism has no basis for truth.
No origins theory can qualify as science. Not one of them is
observable or can be shown in a test case. This includes the big
bang and the origin of all diversity of biological life: the fish
to man version of evolution.
> >
> The implications of the theory of evolution are obvious, if one cannot
> accept creationism in the face of the brute facts that support
> evolution,
Evidence doesn't support populations of fish once upon a time
evolving over generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and
people - only the fabricated beliefs that it happened.
But although we can't call it science, all the evidence much more
logically points to God doing exactly what He said He did -
including evidence of an epic, global flood, DNA (meaningfully
encoded instructions and the ability for those instructions to be
meaningfully decoded and acted upon to perform the miraculous
feats of building organic machines), and more.
> then all of the other claims that the Christian religion
> makes have no basis in fact either, and therefore have no truth value
> to support any further doctrine.
> >
> If accepting of evolution, there is then no truth to the notion that
> angels control the universe, that God appoints leaders that all people
> must completely and blindly, trust and obey, and that anyone who
> doesn't believe in the Christian doctrine as established or revised by
> the godly revelation of the perfect authors is somehow defective and
> worthy of death and hell.
The only people that end up in hell are those who reject and mock
the amazing gift that God offered us through His Son, Jesus
Christ.
2 Peter 3:9 KJV
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men
count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing
that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Matthew 4:17 KJV
17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent:
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Luke 13:5 KJV
5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all
likewise perish.
Acts 3:18-19 KJV
18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the
mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so
fulfilled.
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may
be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the
presence of the Lord;
> >
>
> On Dec 5, 7:11�pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> >
> > room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
> >
> > :
> > : Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
> > :
> >
> > Or another question to consider: Why would He?
> >
> > Consider: God can do whatever He wants, and if He chose to create
> > the universe and the Earth in six days, why wouldn't He? If He
> > chose to create mankind in His image, why wouldn't He?
> >
> > Why would Jesus (God) lie and say He created man in His image in
> > the beginning?
> >
> > Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
> > � � 4 �And he answered and said unto them, �Have ye not read,
> > that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
> > female,
> > � � 5 �And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
> > mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
> > flesh?
> >
> > Some that are against Christianity understand better:
> >
> > ==========http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c003.html
> >
> > What difference does it make whether one believes the world was
> > created or evolved? Can't one embrace Christianity and Evolution?
> > An outspoken evolutionist answered this question in the American
> > Atheist magazine with the following reply:
> >
> > � � � � "Christianity is - must be! - totally committed to the
> > special creation as described in Genesis, and Christianity must
> > fight with its full might against the theory of evolution. And
> > here is why.
> >
> > � � � � In Romans we read that 'sin entered the world through one
> > man, and through sin - death, and thus death has spread through
> > the whole human race because everyone has sinned.' (5:12)
> >
> > � � � � �the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is
> > predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he
> > and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed?
> > Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by
> > death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.
> >
> > � � � � Even a high school student knows enough about evolution
> > to know that nowhere in the evolutionary description of our
> > origins does there appear an Adam or an Eve or an Eden or a
> > forbidden fruit. Evolution means a development from one form to
> > the next to meet the ever-changing challenges from an
> > ever-changing nature. There is no fall from a previous state of
> > sublime perfection.
> >
> > � � � � Without Adam, without the original sin, Jesus Christ is
> > reduced to a man with a mission on a wrong planet!"
> >
> > Did this opponent of Christianity understand the issues more
> > clearly than most Christians? How important it is that we as
> > Christians be consistent in our thinking. We must accept all of
> > the Bible as God's Word. In it God says what He means and He
> > means what He says.
> >
> > We are reminded of the words of the apostle John who wrote, �The
> > word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory,
> > the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace
> > and truth� (John 1:14).
> >
> > No, Christ was not merely a man with a mission on the wrong
> > planet. He was truly God incarnate of a love mission to the right
> > planet. �For God so loved the world, that He gave His only
> > begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish,
> > but have everlasting life� (John 3:16).
> > ==========
gabriel
room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
> gabriel wrote:
> > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:06:17 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> > room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
> >
> >> gabriel wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> >>> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Or another question to consider: Why would He?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Because its the natural way.
> >
> > It's not natural that populations of fish once upon a time
> > evolved over generations eventually into people.
> >
>
> But it is natural that it all happen over a long period of time.
No, it's only natural to those who choose to reject the logically
undeniable truth of God.
>
> >
> > And yes, there are those who deny the existence of God, and try
> > to come up with a "nature only" way of where people came from.
> > And that's why they come up with such ridiculous stories.
> >
>
> I haven't heard that.
You haven't heard that there are people who deny the existence of
God? To such people, everything in existence must have come about
by natural means only. This is why they believe once upon a time
populations of fish simply must have evolved over generations
into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people.
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Consider: God can do whatever He wants, and if He chose to create
> >>> the universe and the Earth in six days, why wouldn't He? If He
> >>> chose to create mankind in His image, why wouldn't He?
> >>>
> >>
> >> You don't know how God chose to do it.
> >> The Bible is a simplified creation story passed down generation to
> >> generation.
> >> Its not God's personal log of events. The Creator doesn't keep
> >> written logs of
> >> what he does, as much as you would like him to.
> >
> > How do you know?
> >
>
> Because I am one of many who study God's nature.
We can study what we can of God's nature by reading the Word He
gave us - not by denying He did what He said He did.
>
> >
> >> Humans do however, and they get things wrong a lot.
> >
> > Correct - like believing that once upon a time populations of
> > fish evolved over generations into people.
> >
>
> I'm referring to believing that the earth was flat and the center of the
> universe etc. etc.
Yes, like believing populations of fish can evolve into people,
etc.
>
> You seem to have a one track mind involving fish for some reason.
Not really - I'm not the one that believes all mammals, all
birds, and people evolved from them over generations once upon a
time.
>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Why would Jesus (God) lie and say He created man in His image in
> >>> the beginning?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Jesus didn't say that for a start.
> >
> > How do you know?
> >
>
> Jesus doesn't say that anywhere.
If you don't want to believe Jesus is God in the flesh (which He
is), then why would God lie and say He created man in His image
in the beginning?
Genesis 1:26-27 KJV
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:21-24 KJV
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,
and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the
flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made
he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of
my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of
Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
4 And he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not
read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
flesh?
Also, medical science says it's fact that a person who's been
verified dead is dead for three days, it's impossible to be
brought back to life. So do you believe this? Or do you instead
believe God did what He said He did and rose Christ from death on
the third day?
>
gabriel
room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
> > "The Christian elephant in the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in
> > message news:hfesq1$8nd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >>
> >> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
> >
> > Whether or not He "would" is really irrelevant. The fact is He didn't.
> >
>
> And you know this how exactly?
How do you know He did, exactly?
>
> >
> > Anyway, evolution, or Darwinism, by definition is a non-creative
> > process. It is random variation filtered through natural selection.
> >
>
> Who says evolution asserts that creation was the result of randomness?
> Creation likely came about by interacting energetic forces forming patterns
> over time.
gabriel
Free Lunch
Not even close. It is not my fault that either one of you have chosen to
remain ignorant of either how science works or what evidence has been
gathered. That is your responsibility before you go shooting off your mouths
about things you do not know and do not understand.
>> How about THAT
You appear to be proud of your ignorance.
Free Lunch
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:01:19 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>> > "The Christian elephant in the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in
>> > message news:hfesq1$8nd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >>
>> >> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>> >
>> > Whether or not He "would" is really irrelevant. The fact is He didn't.
>> >
>>
>> And you know this how exactly?
>
> How do you know He did, exactly?
There is no evidence that any gods exist or ever did anything. Why make up
stories about what gods have done?
Wild Bill
"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bh7i5l3e427djeqp...@4ax.com...
I'd believe medical science...in fact, I'd believe lots of people before I
believed you!
>
>>
The Christian elephant in the room
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 07:11:36 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>> gabriel wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:06:17 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>>> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> gabriel wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 11:10:37 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
>>>>> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or another question to consider: Why would He?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because its the natural way.
>>>
>>> It's not natural that populations of fish once upon a time
>>> evolved over generations eventually into people.
>>>
>>
>> But it is natural that it all happen over a long period of time.
>
> No, it's only natural to those who choose to reject the logically
> undeniable truth of God.
>
What truth? Do you have some actual verified truth about God?
>>
>>>
>>> And yes, there are those who deny the existence of God, and try
>>> to come up with a "nature only" way of where people came from.
>>> And that's why they come up with such ridiculous stories.
>>>
>>
>> I haven't heard that.
>
> You haven't heard that there are people who deny the existence of
> God? To such people, everything in existence must have come about
> by natural means only. This is why they believe once upon a time
> populations of fish simply must have evolved over generations
> into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people.
>
I never heard them mention anything about 'populations of fish...'.
>>>>
>>>> You don't know how God chose to do it.
>>>> The Bible is a simplified creation story passed down generation to
>>>> generation.
>>>> Its not God's personal log of events. The Creator doesn't keep
>>>> written logs of
>>>> what he does, as much as you would like him to.
>>>
>>> How do you know?
>>>
>>
>> Because I am one of many who study God's nature.
>
> We can study what we can of God's nature by reading the Word He
> gave us - not by denying He did what He said He did.
>
What Word did he give us?
What did he say he did?
>>
>>>
>>>> Humans do however, and they get things wrong a lot.
>>>
>>> Correct - like believing that once upon a time populations of
>>> fish evolved over generations into people.
>>>
>>
>> I'm referring to believing that the earth was flat and the center of
>> the universe etc. etc.
>
> Yes, like believing populations of fish can evolve into people,
> etc.
>
No. I don't know anyone who says that except you.
Its all you seem to be able to talk about.
>>
>> You seem to have a one track mind involving fish for some reason.
>
> Not really - I'm not the one that believes all mammals, all
> birds, and people evolved from them over generations once upon a
> time.
>
Well I haven't heard it from anyone else.
However, everything must follow a logical sequence over a period of time in
order to end up with a functioning eco system.
The Bible God with his five minute magic tricks does not.
The truth is we don't know how it all came together so there's no point
preaching about it.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would Jesus (God) lie and say He created man in His image in
>>>>> the beginning?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jesus didn't say that for a start.
>>>
>>> How do you know?
>>>
>>
>> Jesus doesn't say that anywhere.
>
> If you don't want to believe Jesus is God in the flesh (which He
> is), then why would God lie and say He created man in His image
> in the beginning?
>
Jesus was allegedly an aspect of God in human form. He was not present
during the creation process.
He came later.
>
> Genesis 1:26-27 KJV
> 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
> likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
> and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
> the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
> earth.
> 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
> created he him; male and female created he them.
>
We don't know what that means or who said it.
And we don't know what was meant by 'image'.
>
> Genesis 2:21-24 KJV
> 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,
> and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the
> flesh instead thereof;
> 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made
> he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
> 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of
> my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of
> Man.
> 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
> and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
>
Sounds very much like a story for simple folk.
>
> Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
> 4 And he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not
> read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
> female,
> 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
> mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
> flesh?
>
How is this info helpful to us now in the 21st century?
We have far better info about things now.
>
>
> Also, medical science says it's fact that a person who's been
> verified dead is dead for three days, it's impossible to be
> brought back to life. So do you believe this? Or do you instead
> believe God did what He said He did and rose Christ from death on
> the third day?
>
Back then people thought that an unconscious person was dead.
The truth is we don't know exactly what happened thousands of years ago.
They had very poor methods for keeping records. Much was just word of mouth
which is notoriously know to lead to distortions, embellishments and
misunderstandings.
The Christian elephant in the room
Religion fails even more.
Religion explains nothing about how everything came about. It just tells a
simple story of a few symbolised basics.
The Christian elephant in the room
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 14:01:19 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
>> Kalkidas wrote:
>>> "The Christian elephant in the room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote in
>>> message news:hfesq1$8nd$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
>>>
>>> Whether or not He "would" is really irrelevant. The fact is He
>>> didn't.
>>>
>>
>> And you know this how exactly?
>
> How do you know He did, exactly?
>
Just by the mountains natural evidence.
All the many layers of ancient natural deposits and erosions, the staggering
variety of creatures which have certain distinct sequential variations of
physiology, the evolvement of specific senses specialised for certain
regions and hunting requirements etc. etc.
It all looks suspiciously natural and progressive.
gabriel
wrote:
> gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >: >
> >: > : which has since gone extinct ..... and as you no doubt are aware,
> >: > : we don't even need fossils anymore to show this ....... the study
> >: > : of DNA in genomes has conclusively demonstrated this ......
> >: >
> >: > No, your belief about what we see in DNA is the only thing that
> >: > "shows" this.
> >: >
> >: > Meanwhile, show a single test case of the version of evolution
> >: > you believe in. For example, populations of [flies] evolving,
> >: > over generations, into animals that are clearly no longer [flies]
> >: > at all. You can replace [flies] with any animal you wish.
> >: >
> >: > Fact is the fish to man version of evolution is not observable,
> >: > not testable, not verifiable - not science.
> >:
> >: taking advice from a creationist is laughable ....... fact is .....
> >: you lot are a laughing stock to most of the educated world ......
> >: silly primitive beliefs, held by silly primitive minds ( i.e. you and
> >: your fellow creationists ) are very funny to watch ........ but
> >: unfortunately held by too many uneducated yokels ........
> >
> > This string of insults does not make up for the fact that you
> > cannot provide a test case of your version of evolution - proof
> > that your beliefs are not science. Care to prove otherwise?
> > Please present such a test case.
> >
>
> there's plenty of evidence of speciation .......
>
Speciation is not even remotely the fish to man version of
evolution. Speciation: populations of [flies] producing, over
generations, more [flies] that in rare cases are what we classify
as a slightly different species of [flies] - but ~still [flies]~.
(true no matter what animal you replace with [flies] in that
sentence). That's not the fish to man version of evolution.
The fish to man version of evolution would be populations of
[flies] producing, over generations, animals that are clearly no
longer [flies] at all. (just like people, hippos, giraffes and
eagles are all clearly no longer fish at all, although they
believe all such things and more evolved from populations of fish
over generations once upon a time).
Please provide an actual observation or test case of your version
of evolution. Thank you.
> you just refuse to
> accept it ....... talk origins, National Academy of Sciences will get
> you started ...... I know you will just hand wave these away ...... and
> this is why you get insults .....over time we just get fed up with your
> prehistoric attitude and blatent pig ignorance ....... you are ignorant
> and proud of it ....... all that is left is to mock you ....
>
>
> >
> >:
> >: if you have any arguments with what I have said ....... take it up
> >: with the final arbiter on things Scientific .......... the National
> >: Academy of Sciences .......
> >:
> >: http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
> >:
> >: the same science that gives you the very computer and Internet that
> >: you are using right now ...... says you are wrong on Evolution
> >
> > Sorry but the belief that populations of fish evolving once upon
> > a time into hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings has no
> > bearing or effect whatsoever on what is actual science - nor the
> > Internet or computers.
> >
> >
>
> you've had this misconception of Evolution 'fish to man' explained to
> you more times than I can count ...... you refuse to learn and cling
> desperately to your Bronze Age myths ....... If the National Academy of
> Sciences says Evolution is Science ........ then it IS science .......
> they are the final arbiters on this ....not you or your fairy tales
> ......
>
> more fool you ......
>
>
> >: ..... I don't
> >: expect to change your opinion on this, as I know very well from your
> >: posting history that you are a scientific Luddite ...... when you can
> >: come up any evidence that 'your' theory of creation is correct
> >
> > No origins theory can qualify as science, including the fish to
> > man version of evolution and creation.
> >
> > So again, the fact that you can not show a single test case of
> > your version of evolution only proves this fact: the fish to man
> > (or molecules to man as some call it) version of evolution is
> > just a belief and does not even qualify as science.
> >
> > You can disprove that at any time by providing an observation or
> > a test-case of this fish to man version of evolution. But see, no
> > one can. One can only believe in it.
>
> don't need to ...... it is accepted fact by every legitimate Scientific
> organisation in the WORLD !!! whereas your pathetic Fairy Tale is
> laughed at by educated folk ........ sucks to be you .....
>
> >
> >: ( and I
> >: know you can't ....there simply are no scientifically credible peer
> >: reviewed papers that do ) I will stand corrected .... until then ....
> >: you and your ilk Gabriel will continue to be classed as 'scum'
> >: .......
> >
> > Such vicious hatred, unfortunately, is all many evolutionists
> > like yourself can bring to the table when confronted and call on
> > the fact that your beliefs do not qualify as science. If you want
> > evidence for the real truth, ask yourself why you have to resort
> > to such nasty hatred to defend what is supposed to be "science" -
> > observable, testable, verifiable.
>
> I see you are trying to divert ....... nothing unusual there ..... if
> you have some Scientific peer reviewed papers that can support Creation
> please let us all know ........ I can direct you to THOUSANDS of such
> papers supporting Evolution ....... until you do that you have lost this
> argument Gabbers .....
gabriel
wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:23:08 -0800 (PST), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 7, 1:44�am, duke wrote:
> >> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 "The Christian elephant in the room" wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
> >>
> >> He did after he created. �Evolution is not creation.
> >>
> >Creation Compromises
> >http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
>
> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000 years old. At
> least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
>
Genesis 1:26-27 KJV
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 2:21-24 KJV
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,
and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the
flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made
he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of
my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of
Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Matthew 19:4-5 KJV
4 And he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not
read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and
female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
flesh?
Does Jesus not have common sense? Or was He lying? Or is the
Bible just made up of lies? No child of God would ever entertain
any of those lies.
The fish to man version of evolution is not observable and no
test case can be shown verifying that it actually happens. One
can only believe in it.
But I'll tell you what is repeatedly observable and test cases
can be shown all the time verifying it: that it's impossible for
a person who has been verified dead and been dead for three days
to come back to life. So, do you now hold what is clearly
scientific fact over what God's Word tells us, and deny that
Christ rose from the dead three days later, and rose others from
death days later? Or do you instead discard what is observable,
testable and verifiable to have faith that God did exactly what
He said He did?
If so, people that then instead cling to what is ~not~
observable, and that no test case can be shown of it happening
(the fish to man version of evolution), and deny the glory of God
doing exactly what He said He did, are clearly just ashamed of
God's Word and are afraid of being insulted for believing Him.
Selective faith. Jesus speaks quite clearly against those who are
ashamed of the words of God or Jesus, of such people's fate:
Luke 9:23-26 KJV
23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me,
let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but
whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world,
and lose himself, or be cast away?
26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of
him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his
own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.
We must take up our cross daily and suffer the ridicule of those
who are merely seeking dishonest ways to flat out reject the
truth of God. We must not have such a great desire to fit in and
deny the truth of God and what Jesus also said so that we are not
persecuted for going against the lies being told about creation
where God is concerned. What is a man advantaged if he gains the
acceptance of fish to man evolutionists, and lose himself or be
cast away?
>
> Creation Ministries International (CMI) stands firmly on the authority of
> Scripture, which entails that Creation occurred in six normal-length days about
> 6000 years ago, and a planet-wide Flood followed about 1600 years later. Many
> Christians who disbelieve the straightforward interpretation of Genesis admit
> that they are motivated mainly by �science�, or rather the uniformitarian
> interpretations of science.
>
Why aren't those same people "motivated by science" to reject
that Christ rose from the dead? Science can repeatedly show
observations and test cases proving it's impossible. Actual
science. No, it's not motivation by science - it's motivation of
being ashamed of the words of God and Christ, and the desire to
fit in and not take up our cross to follow God. Of perhaps not
really having God in our hearts in spite of professions that we
do.
Meanwhile when one is willing to be open to the truth that God
created just like He said He did (just like He rose Christ and
others from death just like He said He did), we start to see that
evidence abounds to support that truth. But of course we are free
to dismiss it - free to dismiss the truth of God and be ashamed
of His words and the words of Christ.
gabriel
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:06:48 -0800, "Wild Bill" <bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:dhhqh5pf5tsknc1o0...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 18:23:08 -0800 (PST), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 "The Christian elephant in the room" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
> >>>>
> >>>> He did after he created. Evolution is not creation.
> >>>>
> >>>Creation Compromises
> >>>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
> >>
> >> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000 years old.
> >> At
> >> least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
> >
> >Correction Duke! There are indeed people out there who are stupid enough!
>
> Well, I know, but I was hoping the answer was no. The "yes" comes from those,
> the ones I know, that are scared to death to even suggest that every word in the
> bible is not literally true.
>
It should concern you that you say the same things that atheists
do where God is concerned, and that atheists are on your side in
matters of God.
gabriel
wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 06:12:02 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the room"
> <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
> >duke wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 11:52:01 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the
> >> room" <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> duke wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:06:48 -0800, "Wild Bill"
> >>>> <bils...@daytonwa.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> On Dec 7, 1:44 am, duke wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 "The Christian elephant in the room" wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Why would God not use evolution to create over time?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> He did after he created. Evolution is not creation.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Creation Compromises
> >>>>>>> http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3055
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nobody is stupid enough to believe God created the earth 6000
> >>>>>> years old. At
> >>>>>> least not anyone with a lick of common sense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Correction Duke! There are indeed people out there who are stupid
> >>>>> enough!
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, I know, but I was hoping the answer was no. The "yes" comes
> >>>> from those, the ones I know, that are scared to death to even
> >>>> suggest that every word in the bible is not literally true.
> >>
> >>> You mean the Bible fanatics who believe that the Bible is infallible?
> >>
> >> ??? The bible is .......... infallible? Shirley, you mean that the
> >> Pope is infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of faith and
> >> morals.
>
> >Why would you believe that the Pope is infallible?
>
> The Holy Spirit guides his words re faith and morals.
>
So the Pope is infallible, but the 12 disciples that God
personally picked from the foundation of the world, that Jesus
picked, that walked alongside Jesus, that wrote about what He
said, were not? Wow.
gabriel
wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:01:20 +1100, "The Christian elephant in the room"
> <f...@nutballville.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> ??? The bible is .......... infallible? Shirley, you mean that the
> >>>> Pope is infallible when he speaks ex-cathedra on matters of faith
> >>>> and morals.
>
> >>> Why would you believe that the Pope is infallible?
> >> The Holy Spirit guides his words re faith and morals.
>
> >How can you possibly know what the Holy Spirit is doing with the Pope?
>
> Mat 16:17, 19.
>
This applies to His disciples as well. And they gave us the NT.
You are following selective faith on who you believe is
infallible. =(
>
> >The truth is some Catholic priests told you this silliness, plus you read it
> >in the Catholic Bible and decided to believe it.
>
> All bibles say the same thing.
>
> >Cite one thing that any Pope has said that was divine and infallible. You
> >won't find any.
>
> Only 2 infallible statements in history: The Immaculate Conception and the
> Assumption of Mary.
>
> These two are firm 1st century AD professions by Christians but not found in the
> written word. So the Pope dogmatized them.
>
> > The proof is in the pudding.
> >It is only a fool who believes everything that a large religious
> >organisation says, but completely ignores all its actual fruits.
>
> Ah, but those actual facts are nice to me.