The issue of which is correct (evolution or Intelligent Design) is solved instantly, the moment any truth-seeking person humbles him or her self, repents of sin (read Matthew 5:21-30) and trusts Jesus Christ as Lord and as Savior. But many of you aren’t seeking the truth. You prefer to believe a lie because you love your sins. It’s as simple as that. See John 8:31-32.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Resolution to the Argument
138 comments:
Ray, you have been proven wrong many times by people who have done exactly what you're saying, and who haven't had a revelation.
As much as you like to like to believe that they mustn't have humbled themselves correctly, or truly repented of sin, you're wrong, and arrogant.
I say you can get absolute proof of invisible pink unicorns by thinking about apples while rubbing your stomach. Oh, you didn't get proof of the invisible pink unicorn ? That's because you weren't really thinking about apples. You prefer to think about bananas because you love your sin.
"Chris (from Oz) said...
Ray, you have been proven wrong many times by people who have done exactly what you're saying, and who haven't had a revelation.
As much as you like to like to believe that they mustn't have humbled themselves correctly, or truly repented of sin, you're wrong, and arrogant.
I say you can get absolute proof of invisible pink unicorns by thinking about apples while rubbing your stomach. Oh, you didn't get proof of the invisible pink unicorn ? That's because you weren't really thinking about apples. You prefer to think about bananas because you love your sin."
Chris...stop pretending to be Richard Dawkins. You are just Chris from oz. Please don't neglect your eternal salvation. There's nothing more important.
My Bible tells me I'm write, so there. I'm going to take my ball and go home.
Nothing is indeed more important than eternal salvation, Ray.
Other things more important than your evidence-free claims about reality include what colour pants to wear today and whether it's too wet to walk the dog. Or which seat to pick on the bus. Whether to watch paint dry or stare into space.
Ray. Sometimes I almost think you believe you're working for Satan, because everything that comes out of your mouth is mean spirited and seems designed to push people further away. Do you have a need to be despised? How would you know someone is pretending to be Richard Dawkins. You haven't read any of his books. I know that. Maybe you saw him on TV once.
Maybe your point is that there is nothing more important than your eternal salvation. So why don't you all just sit back, wait to be saved and leave the rest of the world alone? Do you get more heaven points if you save a lot of people? Is that what this is about?
Ray, you are lying when you say that we are not seeking the truth. As Chris has said: you've been caught out so many times by the commentators on your own blog, it's not even funny.
You are the one who is ignoring any evidence. You are the one who is holding onto a lie.
Besides some book written thousands of year ago, what evidence do you have that we hold onto evolution because we "love to sin"? Could it be that it's because of the evidence that you're constantly ignoring?
You do know that your own holy book says that liars will never make into heaven, Ray.
See you in hell then I guess. (if it was actually true)
Ray,
Michael Medved, a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute has recently stated that Intelligent Design is not a theory and does not compete with evolution: it is only a challenge to evolution.
Slowly but surely your irrational belief systems go up in the smoke of reason.
The issue of which is correct (evolution or Intelligent Design) is solved instantly, the moment any truth-seeking person humbles him or her self, repents of sin (read Matthew 5:21-30) and trusts Jesus Christ as Lord and as Savior.
~~~~~~~~
There it is. 'Join my religion and see science for the satanic lie it really is!'
Arguing with religious fanatics about whether evolution is true or not is like arguing with neo-nazis about whether or not the holocaust really happened or not.
Ray doesn't even know that dogs and wolves aren't the same species, yet he "knows" evolution is a gigantic satanic lie.
Only stupid people get their science information from televangelists.
Ray: "Chris...stop pretending to be Richard Dawkins. You are just Chris from oz."
Nice comeback, Ray. Were you up all night writing that one? Or do you just not try, knowing that your fans have such low standards?
Ah Ray, the last few posts remind me of your showdown with the RRS on Nightline, where you were going to prove the existence of God without referring to the Bible.
After a futile debate on your part (ably assisted by Kirk), out come the ten commandments. Maybe your Bible is different to mine. I'm sure I saw them in there somewhere.
I haven't seen any semblance of a reasoned rebuttal of any of the posts by the atheistic evilutionists made in the comments following the last posts. All I see is a lot of unanswered questions, and an ample demonstration of some VERY poor understanding of the most basic concepts of evolution from your supporters.
And now, out comes the old fire and brimstone, appeal-to-authority, the Bible-says-it-so-it-must-be-true arguments.
Is this your best material? It really isn't very convincing at all.
"Chris...stop pretending to be Richard Dawkins. You are just Chris from oz."
This is verging on sounding prideful. Who are YOU pretending to be Ray? Why has God chosen you to be his vessel? Remember, you are just Ray from NZ.
Ray, you're getting fairly efficient at packing fallacies into very short posts. On the other hand, it could mean you're getting lazy or just running out of material. And I don't think Casey Luskin would appreciate the Bible references when citing ID. Aren't you a creationist? You don't lend yourself credibility by hopping on their foundering bandwagon only when it serves your purposes. I'm sure you're confusing some of your followers.
Ray said "Chris...stop pretending to be Richard Dawkins. You are just Chris from oz. Please don't neglect your eternal salvation. There's nothing more important."
But there are plenty of things as non-existent.
I wasn't pretending to be anyone else. Richard does have a hot wife though, makes quite a bit of money, and is well respected, so I would be happy to be him for a while. Whoops, envy and lust. I'm going to hell, right ? :)
chris (from oz) said...
As much as you like to like to believe that they mustn't have humbled themselves correctly, or truly repented of sin, you're wrong, and arrogant.
How is Ray wrong and how are you right?
If you are speaking from personal experience, then your arrogance shows that you never truly repented for if you had, you would never have written those words.
If you are speaking of the experience of others, then you cannot know what you are talking about.
Only God knows the heart of any man and His Spirit will agree with your spirit that you are His.
True repentence does not need any interpretation or proof to know if salvation "took" or not.
I pray your heart will receive Him while there is still time.
Brother,
Your words ring so True! Those who ernestly seek the truth will see the overwhelming evidence of GOD in our world!
I see people trying their best to justify their interests in life, the way they live, and what they do for pleasure.
When you confront them with the Law ( the ten commandments ) they suddenly start "back peddling" and do their best to give excuses, and comparisons to other people.
READERS! Get the 'real' story from Ray and Kirk on the 'Hells Best Kept SECRET' video on my webpage. Learn about the prophecies of Jesus Christ!!
God Bless! Have a Great Day!!! :)
Praying for the non-believers.
'Hells Best Kept Secret'
"It was the message 'Hell's Best Kept Secret' that set me on fire to evangelize the world.
I wouldn't be where I am or who I am today without God having spoken to me through that message. I spent 3 years doing non-stop tract and personal evangelism from the time I first heard the message at 15 years of age until I left to go to Peru and China in 2002 after graduating from high school. I have now been a missionary for about 5 years . . . in the foothills of Tibet ministering to Buddhists and Muslims.
I have prayed and longed for the day that 'Hell's Best Kept Secret' would no longer be the secret that it once was, and I am overjoyed to see all that God has done and is still doing!!!!" -- Eugene West
HBKS video on my websites / blogs,
Watch it while you still can!!!
Ray,
I'm not seeking the truth.
I prefer to believe a lie.
I love sin.
You've also called me insane, stupid, a fool and Satan's spawn.
You think you can slander and abuse people and then hide behind a bible verse. You can't back up your claims with ANY evidence so you think bludgeoning any dissent with your good book passes for sound argument.
Your a coward, Ray.
Pathetic post, Ray!!
Ray - when I heard the radio spot where you quote Dan Barker saying something to the effect of "If there is a God, when I stand before Him I will tell Him to go to Hell," I immediately had a picture pop into my head - it was a picture of a helpless little bunny rabbit saying to another bunny, "If there is a Lion, when I see him I will tell him to go to Hell," with a huge Lion standing over him from behind. That's how the atheist looks to me. Maybe your talented illustrator can put ink to that image. God Bless.
Well seems like you are admitting there is no proof for you position and instead want to call it a matter of faith.
Is that it ? Or do you have actual proof ?
Ray,
That's entirely circular logic: "You believe YOUR argument becuase you you don't believe OURS. Just believe OURS and you won;t believe YOURS anymore." Of course, that also entirely ignores those Chrisians who accept evolution.
Of course, some of us agnostics/atheists went the other way. We were believers until the evidence showed us that the Bible is unrelaiable...
Your words ring so True! Those who ernestly seek the truth will see the overwhelming evidence of GOD in our world!
Can you please provide a reference for your previous assertion that Charles Darwin was "high" on "hash" during his voyage on the HMS Beagle?
"Dimensio said...Can you please provide a reference for your previous assertion that Charles Darwin was "high" on "hash" during his voyage on the HMS Beagle?"
Dimensio...I have to ask you who it is that you keep asking this question. You must have posted it a dozen times. If it's me, I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.
That's right, if you just accept the Bible and stop thinking for yourself, then you too can be a creationist and ignore all the evidence, because a bunch of ancient nomads said the earth was created in six days! Gosh, how could we not believe them?
Oh, right, we all did until we found more reliable ways to study the earth than mine ancient myths.
Reading this blog is like going back to the middle ages, which is why I find most of it hilarious, but sometimes, even I can't believe how crazy these posts can be. How embarrassing for non-fundie Christians.
Ray, this keywesthaven guy cracks me up. Aren't you embarrassed that this guy worships you?
Chris (from oz) said...
I say you can get absolute proof of invisible pink unicorns by thinking about apples while rubbing your stomach. Oh, you didn't get proof of the invisible pink unicorn ? That's because you weren't really thinking about apples.
Would you direct me to the source of this information?
Can show me the historical documents that are interwoven with testimonies of people willing to die for their beliefs?
What blogs about IPU to you visit, I like to join in that debate?
No answers?
Ahhh, it's just another foolish strawman argument again.
Only a fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Ps 14:1)
Ray, all I ask is that you, with a humble heart, admit that your argument is circular and meaningless, and that you only cling to it because you hate logic so much. Once you admit that I'm right then you'll admit that I'm right. Its as simple as that.
BaldySlaphead said...
Other things more important than your evidence-free claims about reality include what colour pants to wear today and whether it's too wet to walk the dog. Or which seat to pick on the bus. Whether to watch paint dry or stare into space.
What shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt 16:26)
You really don't value your life very much.
Ray Comfort said:
//The issue of which is correct (evolution or Intelligent Design) is solved instantly...//
Well, for starters - you present what is called a "False Dichotomy". Stating that the issue is either ONE or the OTHER, does not make it so. Which is part of the frustration you sense from those who know how to properly present an argument. Continuously hacking away at strawmen that you maintain represents the naturalist's position does NOTHING to bolster your own, as you've been REPEATEDLY reminded. You can show yourself to be sincere in your quest for the truth, by learning today, at least THIS MUCH.
However - should you present the argument in this fashion again - it is my opinion that you will be admitting to caring nothing for the truth, and merely presenting an argument that you believe your audience will swallow.
If you REALLY cared about atheists, you'd spend at least a MODICUM of effort in addressing their reasons, as to WHY we say we have no belief in Gods: The lack of any real evidence, of which - I've seen none.
Ray Comfort said:
//...the moment any truth-seeking person humbles him or her self, repents of sin (read Matthew 5:21-30) and trusts Jesus Christ as Lord and as Savior.//
This "experiment" you present as a way of realizing "truth", has been shown to be faulty. It's repeatability has been shown to be lacking. Its value as a test is questionable as well - seeing that OTHER religions make the exact same claim with THEIR respective Gods, whether they be Vishnu, Allah, or Wodin. Why are THEY misinterpreting what they're experiencing, but YOU are not? You need to address this, if your argument is to hold any weight.
Ray Comfort said:
//But many of you aren’t seeking the truth...//
This is bald-faced lie, as is demonstrated EASILY by the fact that atheists here consistently have shown to be be *FAR* more knowledgeable about the Bible and the Requirements of Salvation than you've EVER shown to be about evolution. You've indicated by your words, time & time again, your stubborn refusal to learn even the BASICS of the opposing view. Can you say the same of us? So - who is shown to be slacking in their quest for the truth, Ray?
Ray Comfort said:
//You prefer to believe a lie because you love your sins. It’s as simple as that.//
I grow weary of providing you evidence that secularists show no more propensity for sin, than do theists. I've done so repeatedly, as the evidence is easily available. I'll hop back on that branch the NEXT time you posit this ridiculous view - which is sure to be soon, no doubt.
-ACE
Ray, you are a child.
Your logic, your attitude, your words... all on par with 8-year-old children.
It's a good thing you live in your own little fantasy world. Big boy land would surely crush you.
TheThinker said...
That's entirely circular logic: "You believe YOUR argument becuase you you don't believe OURS. Just believe OURS and you won;t believe YOURS anymore." Of course, that also entirely ignores those Chrisians who accept evolution.
Of course, some of us agnostics/atheists went the other way. We were believers until the evidence showed us that the Bible is unrelaiable...
But how did you come to the conclusion that the Bible is unreliable? By human reasoning. How do you know that Human reasoning is reliable? By human reasoning. Isn’t that circular logic also?
I understand what you’re saying. You shifted your faith away from the truth and put your faith into something that gives you the comfortable freedom to sin without guilt. Well, your religion of Evolution will lead you to death as you expect, but it will not grant the promise of escaping moral accountability. You will stand before God without excuse on that day and all your human logic will look like foolishness in the presence of absolute Truth.
"Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”" 1 Corinthians 1:20-31
That isn't a resolution to the argument AT ALL, Ray. The argument wasn't whether evolution or creation (ID?) is correct, but rather whether you understood evolution enough to make a claim one way or another.
You tried to show you did, and everyone who knew better proved you wrong.
Just admit that you're wrong. Admit that you're misrepresenting evolution, you don't even have to tell us that you've been doing it willfully or for financial gain. You don't have to tell us ANY of that, just that you've been mistaken.
Just admit that you were wrong on this small thing. You can still think that evolution is complete bunk, and that's okay. That's great and you have not only the right, but the obligation to question scientific theory. Just stop trying to misunderstand it and mistake it and convince everyone else that your false view is real.
The people of your flock with half a brain will see it as intellectual integrity. The atheists who trash you will be shocked that Ray Comfort is willing to learn for real, and might very well come try to talk with you again. How is this a bad thing? You can keep arguing with us and keep thinking atheists are dumb, but at least atheists will be more willing to talk to someone who tries to understand what they're saying.
ray said and inquired:
"Dimensio said...Can you please provide a reference for your previous assertion that Charles Darwin was "high" on "hash" during his voyage on the HMS Beagle?"
Dimensio...I have to ask you who it is that you keep asking this question. You must have posted it a dozen times. If it's me, I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.
endquote
He is referring to a post by Terry making falacious and malicious statements about Charles Darwin without any proof. Much as he has done to anyone who has contradicted him. He has made asssertions of a person being a homosexual, a Nazi, asking if that person was seeking psychiatric help, on hallucinogens, anti-pyschotic medication and other comments.
Hardly a basis for productive or civilized discussion.
Ray said-
“Many of you aren’t seeking the truth. You prefer to believe a lie because you love your sins. It’s as simple as that.”
The Bible states-
The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."
“I am about to destroy them with the earth.”
All the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened, The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.
Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.
Is this the Truth™?
The only people who accept this tall tale as truth are those who are convinced of the “inerrancy” of the bible, and accept it as the “word of God” through divine revelation. The only explanations of this event are offered by individuals and groups who state that “No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”
This, of course flies in the face of modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science. geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines which utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.
Problems with the bible story include, but are not limited to –
- The evidence of historical records of civilizations which predate the alleged date of the Flood
-conflicts with observable erosion patterns had there been a global flood,
- disproof that observable geological strata could have been formed by a universal flood.
- evidence that the cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds inexplainable by flood geology
- Tree ring analysis which shows no evidence of a global flood
- Sedimentary varve analysis which shows no evidence of a global flood
- Thorough and convincing refutation of all flood mechanisms advanced by creationists, including the hydroplate hypothesis, runaway subduction, vapor canopy, comet stikes and so on, clearly showing their innacuracies and physical impossibilities.
Two hundred years ago, one could have accepted the Genesis account of a global flood, but today, given what we know and what we have learned, It is simply irrational to see it as anything more than a myth.
To continue to accept the Bible as inerrant requires, as Kirk Cameron suggested, and apparently Ray Comfort endorses, would require us to “circumnavigate the intellect”.
In other words, don’t think.
Why would God, who, according the Bible, made man in his image, provide mankind with the gift of an intellect, and then demand us to abandon that God-given intellect?
Ray, or others, either provide convincing evidence of this relatively recent flood myth, or stop accepting man made myths and childish stories as the divine word of God.
This is the second day I have made this request. If I continue to receive nothing to validate the creationist claims of a global flood, I will assume that the only basis on which you, and other True Christians™ accept bible inerrancy is founded on irrational, unfounded beliefs, and worthless dogma, and that Ray Comfort is a false teacher, and a fraud.
4 captain howdy
Arguing with Atheistic Evolutionists about whether God is true or not is like arguing with neo-nazis about whether or not the holocaust really happened or not.
Only lost people get information about God from Atheists.
I said Freed
chris (from oz) said...
I said "As much as you like to like to believe that they mustn't have humbled themselves correctly, or truly repented of sin, you're wrong, and arrogant."
Freed responded "How is Ray wrong and how are you right?
If you are speaking from personal experience, then your arrogance shows that you never truly repented for if you had, you would never have written those words."
You are as wrong and arrogant as Ray then. Trying to tell me what I have or haven't experienced or done, purely based on what you've read should happen, according to some old book.
You obviously didn't understand my analogy of the invisible pink unicorn, and are so sure of your own dogma.
Freed continue "If you are speaking of the experience of others, then you cannot know what you are talking about."
What, but you can ? Thousands of people say they've done what Ray said, but didn't get the results Ray expected, and you think I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about, but you apparently are ? And that you "know" those people are lying about having tried.
Can't face the alternateive huh ? That you and Ray are wrong about what happens ? That your book might be wrong on something else ? No, you have to accuse thousands of people of basically lying to you about what they went through in a hard time of their life ?
Freed finished with "Only God knows the heart of any man and His Spirit will agree with your spirit that you are His.
True repentence does not need any interpretation or proof to know if salvation "took" or not.
I pray your heart will receive Him while there is still time."
Freed, I hope that you will receive some humility while there is still time.
@ Captain Howdy - the Everchanging Profile picture!???
What happen to your 'Ouija Board' picture ? You replaced it with a Rev. Haggard picture??
That is quite a contrast in a profile - worker of iniquity!
There is no 'good' in you and you
are corrupt. Psalm 14:1
Would it be asking too much for you to give us the "truth" about yourself?
Your deceit is revealing of your nature 'Howdy', or whatever you are. Keep on this path, and you will arrive in Hell. REPENT !!!
"But many of you aren’t seeking the truth. You prefer to believe a lie because you love your sins."
I think argument is just as effective as if we used it on you:
Ray, you're not seeking the truth. You believe the lie of creationism because you love your comfort blanket of Christianity. Just repent of that and stop your absurd beliefs in Christianity and creationism.
Hmm, not working, eh?
Ray,
You singularly fail to understand the motive behind scientific enquiry.
People do not invent science so that they can deny God.
People do not pretend that God doesn't exist so that we can carry on sinning.
We have genuinely open and enquiring minds and are fascinated by the truth WHATERVER IT IS!!
If there was any evidence at all for God scientists would be lapping it up and trying to find out more.
You cannot understand this because your mind is the one that is closed - you will not accept any answer other than one dependant on God, wheras those of us who actually enquire and think will accept, or investigate further, answers for which there are evidence, regardless of the consequences to our existing understanding.
I heard a great example to illustrate this the other day:
A scientist on the radio was commenting on the new 'Large Hadron Collider' at Cern and he said (and there may be an element of paraphrasing as I didn't write it down at the time):
"We may turn the LHC on and discover that we were wrong and have to completely re-write the laws of physics - that would be really exciting!"
Do you see the point?
he doesn't mind if we are wrong about the fundimentals of physics - he is just interested in finding out the facts or 'truth' of the matter. he has no vested interest in any answer - that, RAY, old Chap, is what an open mind is!!
Phil
P.S. You're still trying to dispute science - which wouldn't, by default, prove God - but you still can't be bothered to answer my questions about God.
@ Bennie Franklin,
In the future, if you quote the Bible. Give book, chapter, verses!
So we can verify the translation is correct, and not edited by an atheist! Thank you!!!
Believe it or not, we have lives to lead ( outside this blog ) and people who ernestly want to learn about the Lord and the Good News!
Most people don't live in their own world of delusions, conjectures, and theories!
As far as your 'Global Flood' challenge. I have a blog dedicated to that, its been there for months! Do a GOOGLE as well.
There is overwhelming evidence from different countries and cultures that it occurred.
Do yourself a favor, research your facts, before you make loose accusations! You come off like a 'ranting student' or a "Rufus" kind of person. You need to 'get_education' there Matie! :)
Praying for you 'Bennie'! Get right with God, before you die and go to Hell! GOD BLESS!!! :)
HBKS video on my blogs!! Good Luck!
bennie franklin said
" This is the second day I have made this request. If I continue to receive nothing to validate the creationist claims of a global flood, I will assume that the only basis on which you, and other True Christians™ accept bible inerrancy is founded on irrational, unfounded beliefs, and worthless dogma, and that Ray Comfort is a false teacher, and a fraud."
You can believe whatever you want in the Land of the Free ...bennie!
Just because you REFUSE to see the truth of it, and ignore evidence does not make your 'theory' correct! lol
Let me give you an example!
You are standing on a highway and blabbering over and over again "There is no God, no Global Flood!". A Mack truck, driving like a 'bat out of Hell' approaches! You ignore it.
You keep blabbering the same nonsense over and over again.
It does not matter, as the truck runs right over you! Who's fault is it? Yours!!!
You refused to believe that His Judgement was coming. You turned a 'blind eye' to the truth.
Now, your dead and on your way to Hell. Save yourself ALOT of PAIN Bennie!! Read the Bible ! Get Right! ...before you die!!!
Its that simple.
BTW, I actually have 2 blogs on the Global Flood. My mistake, I apologize! :)
One on the top and on the bottom of my blog listings.
'The Great Flood' Good luck Ben!
Hope you wake up in time! Ciao!!
Hey Ray & The Rest of the Posters,
Sorry if I've been a little too matter-of-fact lately and therefore sounded a little hard. That's just the nature of discussing scientific theories. Science has always been a passion of mine. :)
Ray Wrote:
You prefer to believe a lie because you love your sins.
If you replace "sins" with "science" and "lie" with "accepted scientific consensus" then you got me. ;)
Terrie-
Your blog contains nothing but a list of anectodal flood stories which are absolutely not evidence, and thouroughly disproven and refuted creationist claims about the Grand Canyon, Niagra Falls, etc., which I previously addressed in my post.
Present some credible evidence or admit that a global flood is just a fairy tale in an errant book.
As yet, you have completely failed.
The issue of which is correct (evolution or Intelligent Design) is solved instantly, the moment any truth-seeking person humbles him or her self, repents of sin (read Matthew 5:21-30) and trusts Jesus Christ as Lord and as Savior. But many of you aren’t seeking the truth. You prefer to believe a lie because you love your sins. It’s as simple as that. See John 8:31-32.
The issue of which is correct (evolution or Intelligent Design) is solved instantly, the moment any truth-seeking person humbles him or her self, repents of misinformation and trusts science as finder and teacher of truth. But many of you aren’t seeking the truth. You prefer to believe a lie because you love your willful ignorance. It’s as simple as that. See: any biology textbook not written by a creationist.
ethan said...
"'What shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt 16:26)'"
Is the answer 'a turnip'?
"You really don't value your life very much."
Au contraire, Ethan, I value my life very highly since all the credible (note that word 'credible' there) evidence suggests it's the only one I'm going to get.
Terrie-
The age of Niagara Falls is not the age of the earth. Geologists estimate that Niagara Falls originated about 7,000 years ago, sometime after the end of the last glacial episode. This says nothing about how old the rest of the earth is, nor does it in any way serve as evidence of a global flood.
You should take that off your Flood Blog, it proves nothing.
Terrie-
The Mississippi delta is seven miles thick at the Gulf of Mexico. This is too thick to have formed suddenly by a single flood, as such a flood would have spread the sediments out, not compacted them all in one place.
Your claimed age of the Mississippi delta considers only its current delta. The location of the delta has changed every so often due to changes in sea level and changes in the course of the Mississippi River. In the early Cenozoic, the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi delta extended as far north as Illinois
This also should be taken off of your global flood blog, as rather than provide any evidence of a global flood, it actually disproves it.
Fail again.
Terrie
If you have a problem with the passages from the Bible as I have quoted them, lay them out, and I will address them.
More to the point, you have thus far completely failed to provide any credible evidence of a global flood as shown in the Bible story, nor have you refuted a single one of the evidence I have shown that indicates that there was no global flood.
Your'e going to have to try harder if you want anyone to accept Bible inerrancy.
Terry chastised:
In the future, if you quote the Bible. Give book, chapter, verses!
So we can verify the translation is correct, and not edited by an atheist! Thank you!!!
Oh the irony of a Creationist offering lessons on the correct way to quote.
Terry, have you ever believed in evolution? If not, have you ever tried to believe it? If not, if you've never absolutely committed to believing it then how can you know it's wrong? If you think you did believe it but ultimately found it to be wrong, how can you be sure your commitment to it wasn't lacking and that you needed to try harder?
This is what you ask of the atheists here yet I see no sign that any Creationist here has ever committed to evolution to the exclusion of all alternative ideas. Isn't that hypocritical? Isn't it arrogant? Isn't it prideful? Isn't that a sin?
Daniel Florien said...
Ray, this keywesthaven guy cracks me up. Aren't you embarrassed that this guy worships you?
But what do you think about Izovaprophet, PhilG, and dale's comments? Oh, wait they represent Atheism. And since Atheism is groundless, illogical, irrational, unreasonable, and purely subjective; their empty pointless rhetoric and name calling would be the kind of argumentation we'd expect from minds that believes in no God.
A fool in his heart says, "There is no God." (Ps 14:1)
keywesthaven1@msn.com (Terry) said...
//Most people don't live in their own world of delusions, conjectures, and theories!//
*SPROING!*
It's my opinion that Terry is heavily invested in the "Irony Meter" markets, and is simply posting here to artificially inflate the value of his stock. Hey - It's as good a theory as Young Earth Creationism - with as much evidence, eh?
keywesthaven1@msn.com (Terry) said...
//There is overwhelming evidence from different countries and cultures that it occurred.//
Yes, Terry. There is overwhelming CULTURAL evidence that societies have folklore concerning massive floods. In fact - we have overwhelming evidence that earth's history is replete with massive floods, as the conditions for them are likely to occur, in any given year, all over the globe. It's quite likely, that a primitive culture would regard MANY of these massive floods, to be ALL ENCOMPASSING - perhaps even WORLD-WIDE!
But that doesn't make it so.
I didn't check your blog, but I will if you can tell me:
Why didn't a world-wide flood, that would have covered the earth for nearly a FULL YEAR - kill every single Fresh Water Fish? How did the Trout live? How did the Perch? Did the catfish suddenly adapt to salt-water, over the course of a month?
LOL! Did the Slug and the Snail suddenly lose their vulnerability to salt water?!?
There is NO EVIDENCE that salt water ever covered the entire earth. In fact - ALL of the geological evidence clearly CONTRADICTS this theory.
It's simply a quaint little story, reflecting the struggles of the societies that had to deal with massive, culture-threatening floods in the past.
And like most Bible stories, its lessons appear to be nearly always LOST or MISCONSTRUED by those who insist on believing them to be literal histories, rather than symbolic truths.
-ACE
Terrie-
You list on your global flood blog that proof of a global flood is that the oldest living thing is a 4,700 year old tree.
The age of the oldest living thing does not indicate dates of events happening before it. It merely shows that no global cataclysm happened less than 4,700 years ago.
However, tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986). A global flood during that time would have broken the tree ring record.
This too, has no place on your global flood blog. Please take it off immediatley.
Also note, the King Clone creosote bush in the Mojave Desert is 11,700 years old.
Do yourself a favor, research your facts before you make loose accusations! You consistantly come off like as person who "circumnavigates their intellect".
Chris (from Oz) said...
Ray, you have been proven wrong many times by people who have done exactly what you're saying, and who haven't had a revelation.
As much as you like to like to believe that they mustn't have humbled themselves correctly, or truly repented of sin, you're wrong, and arrogant.
(And then he went on about invisible pink unicorns and thinking about apples, or something like that.)
There are people around like the ones Chris described. They say, "I tried that, and it didn't work for me." I don't know what sort of "revelation" they were expecting or hoping for, but it just seems to me that if they were truly seeking something that they held to be of great value, their eternal salvation, they would have been more persistent.
In the book of Acts, I noticed that God does grant faith and repentance to people who have heard the Word of God preached and taught: Acts 2:37-41, Acts 10:34-44, Acts 16:14. But some rejected the teaching: Acts 28:24.
My thoughts are that if someone is truly seeking, they can avail themselves of the means that God uses, such as a church service where the law and gospel are clearly taught. Not "getting it" the first time around shouldn't deter the one who values the salvation of his/her soul. Keep knocking, right?
Craig B.
@ Chris on drugs (Oz), you said:
"I say you can get absolute proof of invisible pink unicorns by thinking about apples while rubbing your stomach. Oh, you didn't get proof of the invisible pink unicorn ? That's because you weren't really thinking about apples. You prefer to think about bananas because you love your sin."
Say NO! to drugs! Get help while you can atheist. These 'babblings' come from a 'sick' mind. Ignoring the reality of 'death' to come, will only get you one thing! HELL.
Praying for you! Jesus Loves You!!!
John 3:16-18 , Romans chapter 8.
If humans evolved from apes, why are there no reptile-people or bird-people?
Why do plants not walk or fly?
I don't see grass running away from cows to avoid being eaten.
Why are there still single-celled organisms?
Why do apes still exist?
Why have Evolutionists not evolved any intelligence?
Ray wrote:
"Dimensio said...Can you please provide a reference for your previous assertion that Charles Darwin was "high" on "hash" during his voyage on the HMS Beagle?"
Dimensio...I have to ask you who it is that you keep asking this question.
The question is directed at Terry, who said that Darwin was high on hash. It seems that even you are ignoring what Terry says.
Ace said:
"If you REALLY cared about atheists, you'd spend at least a MODICUM of effort in addressing their reasons, as to WHY we say we have no belief in Gods: The lack of any real evidence, of which - I've seen none."
I am curious what "real" evidence would it take to convince you that there is a God? and that the Bible really is His word?
Funny. I always thought that someone who actively seeks the truth does so by finding evidence, analyzing the evidence, and drawing his or her own conclusion based on the evidence.
I'm glad to see that i don't need to draw my own conclusions anymore. I'll just close my eyes again and accept the "truth" of a 2000 year old superstition.
it's true. pi does equal exactly 3. the extra 0.14159+ must be God. I know this because it's in the bible. And God wrote the bible. The bible says so.
Yep, Simple as That. Just ask Kirk, or even me. An Ex-Atheist....wait don't ask me or at least know I do not throw what is holy to dogs.
Ray-
You don't need to post this but I think you and Kirk (and everyone that works with you) are doing a great job. If we don't get to meet here on earth we will have eternity to get to know each other. Looking forward to it. "Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." Gal 6:9
Ray Comfort said:
//You prefer to believe a lie because you love your sins. It’s as simple as that.//
{{{I grow weary of providing you evidence that secularists show no more propensity for sin, than do theists. I've done so repeatedly, as the evidence is easily available. I'll hop back on that branch the NEXT time you posit this ridiculous view - which is sure to be soon, no doubt.}}}
-ACE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[REPLY]
Ohhhhhhh, is that what all the fuss is about regarding that argument?
I could agree with your statement. There is none that is righteous, no not one. I don't think you will find any theist that thinks that they are less sinful that a skeptic. The difference is in our attitudes towards that sin, not in the degree of.
When confronted with his sin, a Christian is to humble himself and confess and repent of that sin and ask the Lord to help correct whatever habit is in practice. Granted that is not a snap of the fingers - I know that I often love my sin way more than I love God's holiness - but I do seek to change my thinking and my practices when I am face to face with my poor choices.
I have made many changes over the years of some of the more outward manifestations of my love of sin, but there are many others I have yet to deal with, I am ashamed to say, even after 35 years.
The skeptic loves his sin becuase he does not wish to change. Instead he justifies it and tries to cover it within the mores of a secular society. Sometimes it is called "political correctness", someitmes it is "fairness' or "plurality". It can be covered up as "my rights" or even "logic" and "science", but in the end it is really just a love of one's sins and an unwillingness to give them up.
So no, ACE, you aren't any more "sinful" than I am - but I want to give up my sin and give it to Jesus to cover - you just want to continue to live as you want. That is the issue.
Blessings,
Patti
Wannabe Richard Dawkins! LOL Are we gonna have a new show called "American Fool's Idol".
I heard a quote the other day from some show "If you want to hate Christians and be an Atheist, while being a jerk about it. I introduce you to Mr. Richard Dawkins." - Unknown Author
Ray - you didn't post my comment about the trouble I'm having witnessing to my atheist doctor colleague.
I really need the prayers and support of the faithful on this blog, as it seems to have a burden for atheists.
Your post of fornicators was really like an answer to prayer to me Ray, and I feel let down and alone after my comment was not posted.
The legions of hell seem to be rising against me, I put my trust in the Lord.
earthboy said: @ Ray "Do you get more heaven points if you save a lot of people? Is that what this is about?"
Earthboy, it might be that Ray thinks he will indeed score brownie points with God. Or it might just be that the more people he 'saves' the more of his books, DVDs and assorted other stuff he can shill to new cult members.
Captive audience, snyone?
Tommy Alderman said: "Ray - when I heard the radio spot where you quote Dan Barker saying something to the effect of "If there is a God, when I stand before Him I will tell Him to go to Hell," I immediately had a picture pop into my head - it was a picture of a helpless little bunny rabbit saying to another bunny, "If there is a Lion, when I see him I will tell him to go to Hell," with a huge Lion standing over him from behind. That's how the atheist looks to me."
So, your GOd is a bloodthirsty, carnivorous killing machine? Nice.
Have you ever trusted Muhammad as the one true prophet ?? No ??? Then how can you call Islam false ??
If 'personal revelation' is the key, I'm much more inclined to believe my friend who was a fully fledged abstinent monk for years before becoming a Hare Krishna than Mr. Ray 'I earn a few million a year teaching about creationism' Comfort.
Two questions occurred to me reading your latest, short post. The first is, of course, why assume that the Bible (and your particular interpretation of it, at that) is the correct source of absolute authority on this issue.
The issue of whether evolution or intelligent design is correct is, after all, solved with equal celerity the instant one humbles oneself, repents of sin, and trusts in Muhammed as the prophet of Allah. Usama bin Laden is as much a creationist as you are, but this particular "truth" does not seem to have set him free. This might indicate that the point of Jesus' statement is not really evolution vs. intelligent design.
Actually, the question that first occurred to me was, why is the argument you present in your latest blog post better than "The issue of which is correct (heliocentrism or geocentrism) is solved instantly, the moment any truth-seeking person humbles himself, etc..."? As far as I can tell, Jesus in the passage quoted is no more endorsing special creation than he is endorsing the geocentric descriptions of the cosmos that pop up repeatedly in the Bible. Christians had perfectly good reasons for interpreting the Bible as endorsing a fixed-earth-centered universe (e.g. Joshua commanded the sun, not the Earth, to stop moving) for over a millennium and a half, reasons as good as your reasons for rejecting common descent and natural selection.
Indeed, while most of your supporters on this blog are clearly young-earth creationists, you have at least one old-earth creationist fan (Vera), and you yourself seem to take an agnostic view of the age of the Earth. Doesn't the Bible speak as clearly to the age of the Earth as it does to the origin of species, and if so, what you you think it says, and why do you think your interpretation is justified?
Ethan
I understand what you’re saying. You shifted your faith away from the truth and put your faith into something that gives you the comfortable freedom to sin without guilt. Well, your religion of Evolution will lead you to death as you expect, but it will not grant the promise of escaping moral accountability. You will stand before God without excuse on that day and all your human logic will look like foolishness in the presence of absolute Truth.
Ethan doesn't realize that there are people out there who believe in both "God" and evolution.
That kind of exposes the lie that he, Ray, and evangelicals in general use when they say that people accept evolution because it gives a license to sin without guilt.
Examples, Glen Morton, Kevin Miller (who testified for the science side at the Dover Trial), Roger Weins, etc.
It's the typical evangelical way of thinking: you disagree with us because you love "sinning".
Dimensio...I have to ask you who it is that you keep asking this question. You must have posted it a dozen times. If it's me, I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry.
It should be apparent that I am asking this question of keywesthaven1@msn.com (terry), as I quote his postings prior to presenting the inquiry. Terry made the specific assertion some time ago, but has yet to provide any substantiation of the claim.
Chris (from Oz) said... I said Freed chris (from oz) said...
I said "As much as you like to like to believe that they mustn't have humbled themselves correctly, or truly repented of sin, you're wrong, and arrogant."
Freed responded "How is Ray wrong and how are you right? If you are speaking from personal experience, then your arrogance shows that you never truly repented for if you had, you would never have written those words."
You are as wrong and arrogant as Ray then. Trying to tell me what I have or haven't experienced or done, purely based on what you've read should happen, according to some old book.
Reply:
Not my intention to be arrogant or judgemental. So, I will just ask -if one has truly humbled himself and repented why in the world would they change their mind? How is true conversion possible if one can so easily change one's mind? What are Christians, who didn't change their minds, to conclude when someone says I once believed but now I don't? Honest, sincere question.
Can't face the alternateive huh ? That you and Ray are wrong about what happens ? That your book might be wrong on something else ? No, you have to accuse thousands of people of basically lying to you about what they went through in a hard time of their life ?
Reply:
Believe me I have not accused anyone of lying about anything here.
I don't believe Ray or any Christian here is wrong in what we believe nor do we believe there is anything wrong in the Bible. I do believe, as the Bible points out, that an unbeliever absolutely cannot understand the truth.
Freed finished with "Only God knows the heart of any man and His Spirit will agree with your spirit that you are His. True repentence does not need any interpretation or proof to know if salvation "took" or not. I pray your heart will receive Him while there is still time."
Freed, I hope that you will receive some humility while there is still time.
Reply: Since I was not referring to myself, I don't understand your comment concerning humility. I meant what I said in all sincerity.
Dear Ray
Let me quote what Dr. Albert Mohler said yesterday on his show about the age of the earth:
I can hear this in the last segment of his show that you can download for free on his website.
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary-the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world.
"I appreciate Dan's question basically about age of the earth. The whole young-earth old-earth question. And I hold to a young-earth, but I don't want to be unintelligent in doing so. ... Or intellectually dishonest in doing so. So I have to admit the world looks really old. No doubt about it.
There is all kinds of evidence: fossil evidence, there is astronomical evidence, astrological, well that's another story, there is all kinds of evidence just in terms of the stars and what is going on in the created order, petrified woods that the world is very old"
So at least some conservative theologians don't deny the obvious.
If you don't trust me on that you can go to his website by putting "Albert Mohler" into Google and listen to his show from the 27th of August beginning with 32mins and 35 seconds.
"Dimensio...I have to ask you who it is that you keep asking this question. You must have posted it a dozen times. If it's me, I have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry."
Ray though I wouldn't want to speak for Dimensio, I believe what he's doing is trying to make Terry a better Christian. You see, Terry was caught bearing false witness, he has since refused to admit this and repent. Dimensio is kindly offering him a never ending series of opportunities to publicly admit to his committal of this grave sin. Terry has so far refused to do so, rendering anything he might say on the subject of 'Pride' 'Humility' or 'Sin' as useless as a teen dating guidebook penned by Ted Bundy.
I'm unsure as to whether, by your dogma, ignorance is a valid excuse. If it is not I might suggest you also should take advantage of our opportunities to make you a better Christian. Two posts below this it was spelled out in black and white for anyone to see that you have been bearing false witness against the theory of evolution. According to the rules of your game this should be enough to send you to a place of eternal torment. Put aside your 'Us versus them' mentality for one moment and realise, if your God exists, we are (albeit unknowingly) attempting to save your soul.
As somebody else said here a while back, 'How do you expect us to take the 9th commandment seriously when you obviously don't ??'. The very fact that you would continue to unrepentantly break one of your religion's most important rules would suggest your 'Christian salvation' is nothing more than a kind of pack mentality. It often seems the giddy thrill of belonging to an exclusive social group is more important to you than the very things that group is supposed to stand for.
Terry, Ray, take this opportunity to humble yourself and admit to these transgressions. If it doesn't save you from eternal damnation at least it will make us take you a little more seriously when you talk about the 'Prideful atheist'.
@Ray Comfort said:
"Chris...stop pretending to be Richard Dawkins. You are just Chris from oz. Please don't neglect your eternal salvation. There's nothing more important."
Man Ray, when you right, you right. Chris can't be Richard just as Charles can't be Ray. An' you also right - nothin's more important than your eternal salvation. But if you think about it, we all the same - I can be Chris, and you can be Ray, and Richard is all of us - if we all think. We all follow our dreams, and we all follow God in our way. Maybe that's how God wants it. Maybe He gets mad when we don't follow His rules because we arne't following the Him that He thinks we should be following. Maybe Chris aint' got no God, and you have a God, and I have a God, but they actually all the same God. Chris has to think about that just like Richard does, and they do, but they don't have a God. We all the same but nothing alike - that's how God made us. I think that if God was mad at them for bring Chris or Richard, then he'd smite them, but we all dies, so maybe we all making that God mad. So yeah, Chris is worried about Richard's eternal salvation. How could he not be?
Ethan said:
"Would you direct me to the source of this information?
Can show me the historical documents that are interwoven with testimonies of people willing to die for their beliefs?
What blogs about IPU to you visit, I like to join in that debate?"
I know a little religious group from Waco that was very willing to die for their beliefs which were tied to the same "historical book" that your beliefs rely upon.
Terry what Ben Franklin was quoting from is Genesis 6 verses 5-7 since you are so busy that you cannot look it up.
And as far as flood evidence, you have a bunch of stories. Every culture has stories. The details differ signicantly from one culture to the other. And there is no physical evidence. if you can provide one modern mammal fossilized in the same layer as a T-rex and Gorgonnopsid then we have something to talk about. And I do mean a reconizably modern mammal, cows and dogs have not changed significantly over the few millenia in general structure. Or how about someone riding on the back of a triceratops, I mean those may have been used as draft animals as some other fundamentalist suggested.
You want to make extraordinary claims you need extraordinary proof.
You want to just call it a matter of religion fine. But if you want to start shoing it down peoples throats as fact, you need to back up your claims.
Regarding my analogy of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, ethan said "Would you direct me to the source of this information?
Can show me the historical documents that are interwoven with testimonies of people willing to die for their beliefs?
What blogs about IPU to you visit, I like to join in that debate?
No answers?
Ahhh, it's just another foolish strawman argument again.
"
The source of the information is my brain. Sorry that the revelations of the IPU are only relatively recent and so few people have found it necessary to have died for their belief in her, nor have lengthy tomes been dedicated to her holy hooves. However, there are certainly other religions in which those things are true. If I supplied documentation on Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Scientology which shows those things, will you take up one of those religions ?
No answer ? Ah, it's just a foolish dogmatist.
By the way, what I said wasn't a strawman. It was an analogy. Feel free to look the terms up.
"Only a fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Ps 14:1)"
Oh, gee, thanks for that. I haven't heard that before. Wow, I'm like, totally converted now. Alleluia!!!! A miracle!!!
charles reasonable said:
Man Ray, when you right, you right. Chris can't be Richard just as Charles can't be Ray. An' you also right - nothin's more important than your eternal salvation. But if you think about it, we all the same - I can be Chris, and you can be Ray, and Richard is all of us - if we all think.
Wow...um...yeah. Congratulations, you made it into Hilarious Creationist Quotes.
Theists know nothing said:
If humans evolved from apes, why are there no reptile-people or bird-people?
Why should there be?
Why do plants not walk or fly?
I don't see grass running away from cows to avoid being eaten.
Why should it?
Why are there still single-celled organisms?
Why shouldn't there be?
Why do apes still exist?
This is the dumbest objection to evolution you could possibly raise. Using it shows you do not even have an elementary level understanding of the theory of evolution. It is even included on Answers in Genesis's list of "Arguments against evolution that should not be used".
The rest of your questions only further illustrate your ignorance. To save yourself future embarrassment, I recommend you learn what it is you are arguing against.
Why have Evolutionists not evolved any intelligence?
Why didn't God give you any?
Dimensio,
Terry (AKA schizophrenic religious zealot) has stated that thing about hash and Darwin being a drunkard, lots of times before you even started posting here. Of course he will never justify it. Remember that this guy concludes about the personal lives, sexual preferences, adherence to extremist groups (such as nazis), witchcraft, and a huge et cetera, from those little images we can use to adorn our profiles.
With such background, we can only expect that he saw a figurine, image, or whatever it was, representing Darwin close to a pipe, and, as he does, jumped into the conclusion that the pipe was Darwin's, and that he used it to inhale drugs, and that he was high on hash in The Beagle.
Now I say this. If Darwin was high on hash. Wow, what a talented man who could think of such amazingly illuminating ideas while distracted by such an entertainment. Have you read the voyage of a naturalist? Amazing power of observation. There is a compilation of the most important books by Darwin edited by Jim Watson. Highly recommended.
G.E.
Dear Rando,
In your argumentum ad personam
you forgot:
" I know you are but what am I? "
Any educated responses to my questions would be appreciated.
dale said...
Ray,
Michael Medved, a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute has recently stated that Intelligent Design is not a theory and does not compete with evolution: it is only a challenge to evolution.
You know what's funny, Dale? Evolution is technically not a theory either. By definition it is a hypothesis still awaiting the results of the application of the scientific method. A "hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth" So, as long as we're being accurate you guys, let's label it with the truth -- "the hypothesis of evolution" Next, take some time to differentiate among the terms hypothesis, theory, and law. Now, recognize the moral laws which are common to all man such as the prohibitions against lying, stealing, adultery, and murder. The are self-evident laws with no need of the Bible to prove their validity. When we recognize that we have broken at least one of these laws either in thought, word, or deed, we can conclude that we are law breakers. So, it's simple -- law giver (God), law (contained in the Bible), and the accused. God is the only One qualified to pass down judgment, and Jesus did not come to condemn but to save those who were guilty under the law (all of us) by taking our place in judgment. Let God be true, and every man a liar. Though the wicked join hand in hand, they will not escape justice. God has had mercy on you so far (as evidenced by the fact that you are still alive and breathing His air), but He now commands you to repent. If you hear his voice, don't harden your hear any longer. You would be a fool to scoff. He is soon to come again, and his reward is with Him.
What is it exactly that us atheist love doing so much that we don't want to give it up?
If humans evolved from apes, why are there no reptile-people or bird-people?
What specific selection pressures exist that would logically produce such entities?
Why do plants not walk or fly?
What selection pressures exist that would logically produce such a property?
I don't see grass running away from cows to avoid being eaten.
Why would this be expected?
Why are there still single-celled organisms?
Should there not be?
Why do apes still exist?
Why should they not exist?
Why have Evolutionists not evolved any intelligence?
Your question is loaded; it is derived from an undemonstrated premise.
@Jason said to me, "Wow...um...yeah. Congratulations, you made it into Hilarious Creationist Quotes."
Now, I don't know what that means, but I have to agree. We all say some funny things. Funny and true. And that's what makes them funny... we have to be able to look at life, and our hearts and see that what we think with our brains ain't nothin' but jokes we tell to ourselves. That's why all this is so funny to me! It's so important! When will God and Evolution shake hands in the same boat? I think they can, but right now that's not even true. I'm glad you're funny. I've got jokes, too. You seem like a happy man. Peace on ya, and keep up those Creationists!
Iago said...
Well seems like you are admitting there is no proof for you position and instead want to call it a matter of faith.
Is that it ? Or do you have actual proof ?
the proof is there it's always been there you guys just keep ignoring it. repent and turn from your sins before it is to late.
Patti said:
//So no, ACE, you aren't any more "sinful" than I am - but I want to give up my sin and give it to Jesus to cover - you just want to continue to live as you want. That is the issue.//
Soooo... let me see if I have this straight. We both are about as likely to transgress against *society's* rules, I agree. The data bears that out, to an extent.
MIND EXPERIMENT ONE
*******************
Let's posit that we both LIE TO (MISLEAD) our spouses, about the same amount. Once every 3 years or so - BOTH of us engage in a LIE, that is NOT of the Little White Lie For Kindness Variety. We are WILLFULLY misleading, in order to spare us some temporary grief, which we hope will go unnoticed. Once ... every three years. You and I, both.
MY postion, is to realize that lying solves nothing, and is MORE likely to complicate matters later. With the added ramification, that once I cross the line into lying, I must admit that COMPOUNDING the lie with OTHER LIES is a slippery slope that is treacherous indeed. Building a wall of distrust between my wife and myself isn't worth ANY tiny bit of grief I'd avoided with the original lie.
That bit of wisdom, along with the flashbacks of pain and disappointment that I've always felt when *I* was lied to, keeps me honest...
... for a while.
NOW ... let's take YOUR approach. Which, in all likely-hood - IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING. You make the same realizations - you learn the same lessons, by drawing the same conclusions. The only difference, is at the end of your lie, you ask God to forgive you as well, and ask God to give you the strength to avoid such foolishness in the future. And this keeps you honest...
... for the SAME three years.
If we're both as likely to "sin", with the same frequency, and at the same magnitude ... what is the function of faith, other than something you feel the need to express, in order to enter an afterlife? Does it have any REAL WORLD function on your behavior? You may BELIEVE it does, but the data says otherwise.
MIND EXPERIMENT TWO
*******************
Of course, I don't want to be accused of being platitudinous, for it's EASY to argue that LYING is bad, regardless of the source of your ethics. Let's try something a bit more contentious.
Because I would be someone who Ray would call a "Moral Relativist", I don't happen to feel that it's a "sin" to:
1) Have other Gods (or none at all)
2) Making an Idol (kinda silly - but not a "sin")
3) Speak of God Badly (more silliness)
4) Treat Sunday as Nothing Special
5) Slyly oogle my hottie neighbor, as she bends to retrieve her morning paper.
6) Slyly oogle her new aluminum siding, as she goes back into the house.
Recognize these? According to Ray - if I don't stop doing these things, or at least PRETEND to be sorry for them - I'm a far worse person than he. I'm undeserving of Public Office, undeserving of a position of responsibility with children - as if my atheism were a sickness of the mind, or a disease to be quarantined.
You would be correct in assuming that I'm "more sinful" if you count the above transgressions. I'm not particularly ATTACHED to any of the behaviors above - but I certainly wouldn't judge ANYONE ELSE who also felt that they are some silly rules - devised merely as a tool to control a superstitious populous. I'll partake in any or ALL of the above, when I please - without regret. No harm, no foul.
Ray (and his supernatural friends) feel otherwise.
In fact - if I stubbornly REFUSE to follow the rules above, Ray assures me that we will be on OPPOSITE sides of the battle, in an impending Global War, in which he (and his supernatural friends) are destined to SLAY me, using my blood to help create some seven foot deep Lake of Horrors. After which, they feed my body to the crows.
... all because my Hottie Neighbor has New Siding.
Forgive me if I find your position, a bit ridiculous.
-ACE
"Jesus died, for somebody's sins ... but not mine."
-Patti Smith
Blogger earth boy said...
Ray. Sometimes I almost think you believe you're working for Satan, because everything that comes out of your mouth is mean spirited and seems designed to push people further away. Do you have a need to be despised? How would you know someone is pretending to be Richard Dawkins. You haven't read any of his books. I know that. Maybe you saw him on TV once.
Maybe your point is that there is nothing more important than your eternal salvation. So why don't you all just sit back, wait to be saved and leave the rest of the world alone? Do you get more heaven points if you save a lot of people? Is that what this is about?
earthboy maybe you don't understand but you don't have to post here or read the blogs. no one is forcing anything on you. why is it hard to believe that Ray and the others that post here have a true concern for you ? why would you want to choose to go to hell ??
Chris (from Oz) said...
If I supplied documentation on Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Scientology which shows those things, will you take up one of those religions ?
No answer ? Ah, it's just a foolish dogmatist.
And how many Islamic, or Jewish, or Scientology blog do you participate in?
Is it just the message of Jesus Christ that annoys you?
There's something about the Truth that sets off a soul that hates truth.
By the way, what I said wasn't a strawman. It was an analogy. Feel free to look the terms up.
It's a very weak analogy. If I made up a theory for evolution; like we all evolved from pine trees and therefore you're version of evolution is equal to my version, I suppose that's something you ought to consider? The IPU and FSM arguments continue to make Atheist arguments look childish and unreasonable. I suppose if it's the best you have you can't do nothing about it.
"Only a fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Ps 14:1)"
Oh, gee, thanks for that. I haven't heard that before. Wow, I'm like, totally converted now. Alleluia!!!! A miracle!!!
That's been a way to end my posts. I suppose every day you think about it as you think about God and then suppress the truth. Your life is so short, death comes so quickly, and you’re wasting your time fighting against your Creator and only saviour. If you don't feel like a fool now, you will when it's too late.
"Only a fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Ps 14:1)"
Bart said...
I know a little religious group from Waco that was very willing to die for their beliefs which were tied to the same "historical book" that your beliefs rely upon.
I suppose you could also look to Pekka-Eric Auvinen for where Atheistic Evolution could lead someone too.
The difference is that I think Auvinen was consistent to his worldview where Koresh acted contrary to the “historical book.”
If humans evolved from apes, why are there no reptile-people or bird-people?
If steam comes from water, then why are there no steam camels?
Atheists know everything ! said;
If humans evolved from apes, why are there no reptile-people or bird-people?
I'm not sure what you mean by that question. It could mean, "why are there no human-reptile or human-bird intermediates?" Or, it could mean, "why have reptiles and birds not evolved convergently with humans, as reptiles (in the form of ichthyosaurs) evolved convergently with whales and dolphins?
If you meant the first, there are no intermediates between birds and humans for the same reason that your cousin's son is not your father. Birds share ancestors with humans (early amniotes -- "reptiles" -- back in the Carboniferous period), but no bird is the ancestor of any mammal. If you define "reptile" broadly enough (to include all cold-blooded amniotes), then some of our ancestors were "reptiles," and there were a number of "reptile-human" intermediates, from Permian-period therapsids to Pleistocene Homo erectus, but there certainly weren't any scaly egg-laying humanoids.
If you mean the second, Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory replace the "evolutionary ladder" (with humans as the goal of evolution) with an "evolutionary tree" in which species are differently adapted to different lifestyles in different environments, and humans are not the goal of the process. There's convergent evolution, but we're not necessarily one of the patterns that it converges on frequently.
Why do plants not walk or fly?
I don't see grass running away from cows to avoid being eaten.
I'm relieved to hear that you don't see grass running. Grass doesn't have muscles or a nervous system, which makes it hard to evolve the ability to run (and photosynthesis, in any case, doesn't supply enough power for a highly mobile lifestyle).
Grass does have adaptions to deal with grazing; these include both rapid growth to recover from having its leaves eaten, to silica "phytoliths" embedded in the blades of grass to make grass a less attractive meal to many plant-eaters. Other plants have other adaptions; fruit is an adaption to use plant-eaters to spread seeds: they swallow the seeds with the plants, excrete them at some other location, and help the plant spread its genes around. Some plants are poisonous, of course. Various plant-eaters have evolved countermeasures to all of these adaptions: grazers are adapted to the tough grass leaves, many animals (ourselves included) are immune to some plant poisons), etc.
Why are there still single-celled organisms?
Because multicelled organisms are too large to successfully compete in the ecological niches occupied by single-celled organisms. Again, evolution is not a ladder climbed towards the goal of "higher" or smarter organisms. Every step in an evolutionary pathway has to be fit in some ecological niche, and as long as that niche lasts, something is likely to survive by filling it. Bacteria worked, and no eukaryote worked better at what they did, so bacteria survive. Single-cell eukaryotes worked, so they still exist.
Why do apes still exist?
They nearly don't; humans have been pressing hard on their habitats in recent centuries. But they exist because they're adapted for jungles, which are not particularly desirable habitats for humans. Our ancestors drove the plains-dwelling nonhuman apes extinct millions of years ago.
Why have Evolutionists not evolved any intelligence?
Intelligence is expensive; brain tissue uses more oxygen and nutrients for the amount of mass it takes up than nearly any other sort of tissue. And large brains pose a problem for childbirth; it's easier to give birth to small-brained children. So there are selection pressures against higher intelligence; selection pressures would need to be very intense to push brain size much past current human levels. And evolutionary theory has only been around for (counting from the earliest forms of actual evolutionary theory) a little over 200 years; that's not much time for selection pressures to work anyway.
So no, ACE, you aren't any more "sinful" than I am - but I want to give up my sin and give it to Jesus to cover -
So if I drive my friend's car and get caught by a speed camera, is it okay if I let him pay the fine and cop the penalty points? If I do this, does that absolve me of my speeding?
Is it also okay if I rob a store and then, when questioned, I tell the police my neighbour did it and let him go to jail instead of me? Does this mean I didn't really do anything wrong after all?
Charles Reasonable said:
Now, I don't know what that means, but I have to agree. We all say some funny things. Funny and true. And that's what makes them funny... we have to be able to look at life, and our hearts and see that what we think with our brains ain't nothin' but jokes we tell to ourselves. That's why all this is so funny to me! It's so important! When will God and Evolution shake hands in the same boat? I think they can, but right now that's not even true. I'm glad you're funny. I've got jokes, too. You seem like a happy man. Peace on ya, and keep up those Creationists!
Mom says I can't hang out with you anymore.
ethan asked
"And how many Islamic, or Jewish, or Scientology blog do you participate in? Is it just the message of Jesus Christ that annoys you?"
No Jewish ones. I did frequently participate in Scientology newsgroups, arguing with the cultists. I do that less frequently now, but still go to the protests. I also read and occasionally comment on an anti-Islam blog "Kafirgirl". Plus there's all the atheist sites I go to which mention stories related to all these religions, and more.
"There's something about the Truth that sets off a soul that hates truth."
Actually, there's something about living in a society which is dominated by one religion. There's also something about previously being a believer of that religion. You've never met someone as interested in the truth as I am. Note the lower case "t" on "truth". Any time someone unduly capitilises it, it's a synonym for "dogma".
"It's a very weak analogy. If I made up a theory for evolution; like we all evolved from pine trees and therefore you're version of evolution is equal to my version, I suppose that's something you ought to consider? The IPU and FSM arguments continue to make Atheist arguments look childish and unreasonable. I suppose if it's the best you have you can't do nothing about it."
No, actually the IPU and FSM arguments continue to make Christianity look childish and unreasonable. When you truly realise why the IPU and FSM are stupid, you'll be able to figure out why your religion is too.
By the way, my original analogy wasn't of the whole of Christianity. It was of Ray's comment about how to obtain proof of God.
"Only a fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Ps 14:1)"
Whereas wise people say it out loud.
@Multiple Terry/Man With A Badge/Man With A Cross--
@ Captain Howdy - the Everchanging Profile picture!???
What happen to your 'Ouija Board' picture ? You replaced it with a Rev. Haggard picture??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Terry--Are you high on hash?
Ethan said:
"I suppose you could also look to Pekka-Eric Auvinen for where Atheistic Evolution could lead someone too.
The difference is that I think Auvinen was consistent to his worldview where Koresh acted contrary to the “historical book.”
Really? Are you really going to ignore the comment I was responding to and take my entire statement out of context? Ethan, what I was responding to was your statement:
"Can show me the historical documents that are interwoven with testimonies of people willing to die for their beliefs?"
You were arguing that your "historical documents" (i.e. the Bible) were more likely true because people are willing to die for their beliefs. I was making the argument that there are plenty of religious groups with members willing to die for their beliefs - the Branch Davidians being one of them (there are also many Muslims that are willing to die for their beliefs, and atheists as well).
As for your belief that Koresh was acting contrary to the Bible, that is your opinion possibly based on your interpretation of the Bible. Koresh knew the Bible better than probably anybody posting on here - do a little research he had so much of it memorized it was actually pretty impressive.
The point I was making is that you are incorrect - just because people are willing to die for their beliefs does not make those beliefs any more likely to be true. If you really believed that, you would believe that the fact that the Branch Davidians were willing to die for their beliefs makes it more likely that David Koresh was really the Second Coming. You obviously do not believe that, so you can't really believe your prior argument.
Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.
Jarz of clay aiken said...
"What is it exactly that us atheist love doing so much that we don't want to give it up?"
Thinking.
Dear Atheists know everything:
Any educated responses to my questions would be appreciated.
Well, if you give me some educated questions I'll oblige you with some educated answers. However, judging by the last question in your initial post you aren't looking for those.
I see Steven J did you some educated answers to your ridiculous questions. I expect you'll ingore them.
Estuckey said...
dale said...
Ray,
Michael Medved, a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute has recently stated that Intelligent Design is not a theory and does not compete with evolution: it is only a challenge to evolution.
You know what's funny, Dale? Evolution is technically not a theory either.
Oh? I betcha there are quite a few uneducated fundie Christians that will actually believe you!
And just what credentials do you posess that allows you to discredit every major scientific acadamy on the face of the earth? Hmmmmm?
You made my day with that bit on nonesense!
I love the way these ignorant crackpots pronounce science invalid while never having attended a science class.
It's like a member of a school board in Ohio a while back was doing everything she could to get intelligent design included in science class. She appointed herself to review the biology texts. It turns out she has an accotiates degree in accounting and the only science class she ever had was in eighth grade HAHA!
This is absurd.
Chris (from Oz) said...
Actually, there's something about living in a society which is dominated by one religion. There's also something about previously being a believer of that religion. You've never met someone as interested in the truth as I am. Note the lower case "t" on "truth". Any time someone unduly capitilises it, it's a synonym for "dogma".
Another testimony of a false conversion. So you never really knew the Lord, and as you tried to pretend to be a Christian it interfered with the sin that you love. And now you’re jaded and hate those who love the Lord and speak His Truth. (The capital T is to remind you that it's objective and absolute. Those who don't believe in such Truth might as well make up their own morality and reality, which is the essence of atheism).
"Only a fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” (Ps 14:1)"
Whereas wise people say it out loud.
…for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. (Mat 12:34)
"Blogger Andy said...
So if I drive my friend's car and get caught by a speed camera, is it okay if I let him pay the fine and cop the penalty points? If I do this, does that absolve me of my speeding?"
You've also got to remember that the speed limit is 0 MPH anywhere you drive your car. An you are just as guilty for speeding as you are for murder.
Forgiven37 asserted :
the proof is there it's always been there you guys just keep ignoring it. repent and turn from your sins before it is to late.
endquote
And this proof is ? What exactly?
Going to point to the sky, a tree, a baby ?
If so,an argurment from incedulity does not prove a point.
Chris (from Oz) said...
Actually, there's something about living in a society which is dominated by one religion. There's also something about previously being a believer of that religion. You've never met someone as interested in the truth as I am. Note the lower case "t" on "truth". Any time someone unduly capitilises it, it's a synonym for "dogma".
Another testimony of a false conversion. So you never really knew the Lord, and as you tried to pretend to be a Christian it interfered with the sin that you love. And now you’re jaded and hate those who love the Lord and speak His Truth. (The capital T is to remind you that it's objective and absolute. Those who don't believe in such Truth might as well make up their own morality and reality, which is the essence of atheism).
Can't you see how it is your own personal judgement and your own personal judgement ONLY that is deciding whether or not someone else had a "false convsersion"?
There is no way to define who is a Christian at all. The person sitting next to you you might believe to be a committed saved christian: the following day, it might turn out that he's an adulterer. Then you will also make a choice as to whether you forgive him or not, and whether he is still a christian. Etc etc. It is always you making the choices, and you have to interpret the bible in your own personal way to make those choices. It's your interpretation, and it is only valid in your own mind. Another Christian can just as equally say "you are not a true christian and you never were".
It's completely self defeating, and if you can't see the irony of it all, then you are either too far deluded by the self-importance your religion gives you, or you are just dumb.
So you never really knew the Lord, and as you tried to pretend to be a Christian it interfered with the sin that you love. And now you’re jaded and hate those who love the Lord and speak His Truth. (The capital T is to remind you that it's objective and absolute. Those who don't believe in such Truth might as well make up their own morality and reality, which is the essence of atheism).
Can you provide a means of discerning actual "Truth" from what is merely believed to be "Truth"? For example, how have you established with certainty that what you believe to be true is correct? How have you established that the accusations that you have made against Chris (from Oz) are accurate?
Terry from your own Blog :
According to the Biblical chronology the global flood occurred approximately 4500 years ago. If this event occurred as described in the Bible, the geological evidence left behind could never be correctly interpreted by a naturalist.
endquote
Well lets see...there is Methuselah a bristlecone pine tree that is 4800 years old. there is prometheus another one that was 5000 years old when it was cut down. There are also several clonal organisms that reflect a much older age but their dating may be controversial.
However according to Bishop Usher, whose scholarship I am assuming you are using the flood happened at 2349 BC. So the oldest anything could possible be acccording to your chronology is 4357 years old.
Both trees mentioned exceed that date by 443 years in one case and 643 in the other ( when it died).
And both these dates were accomplished counting physical tree rings.
Terry there is no evidence that a global all encompassing flood ever occurred.
captain howdy,
I know what you did last night.
Benjamin Franklin said…
Terrie- The age of Niagara Falls is not the age of the earth. Geologists estimate that Niagara Falls originated about 7,000 years ago, sometime after the end of the last glacial episode. This says nothing about how old the rest of the earth is, nor does it in any way serve as evidence of a global flood. You should take that off your Flood Blog, it proves nothing.
Ben also said…
Terrie- The Mississippi delta is seven miles thick at the Gulf of Mexico. This is too thick to have formed suddenly by a single flood, as such a flood would have spread the sediments out, not compacted them all in one place. Your claimed age of the Mississippi delta considers only its current delta. The location of the delta has changed every so often due to changes in sea level and changes in the course of the Mississippi River. In the early Cenozoic, the Gulf of Mexico and the Mississippi delta extended as far north as Illinois. This also should be taken off of your global flood blog, as rather than provide any evidence of a global flood, it actually disproves it. Fail again.
Actually both are a very good evidence of the Global Flood, as well as the Grand Canyon.
ethan said "Another testimony of a false conversion."
I never converted to Christianity. I grew up in it. I converted FROM it though.
"So you never really knew the Lord"
That's true. It's unlikely you do either, since he likely doesn't exist. Just like Scientologists don't really know Xenu.
"and as you tried to pretend to be a Christian it interfered with the sin that you love."
These are bold claims for someone who has never met me. It may surprise you to learn this, but logic and rationality was why I figured out it was all make believe. There is certainly some "sin" I love, that's true, but it was only interfered with by my girlfriend's Christianity, not mine :)
"And now you’re jaded and hate those who love the Lord and speak His Truth.".
Jaded ? Of Christianity, yeah, in the sense of "made callous by experience". Brainwashing can do that. I'm not Jaded of people who "love the Lord", only those that try to inflict it on others.
"(The capital T is to remind you that it's objective and absolute. Those who don't believe in such Truth might as well make up their own morality and reality, which is the essence of atheism)."
Really ? Your claim is that you know the objective and absolute truth. That's quite humble.
The "essence" of atheism is actually non-belief in gods. Where morality comes from is a separate question. And reality can't be made up (as much as you try). It can only be investigated.
"…for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. (Mat 12:34)"
...for out of the abundance of lunch, the mouth burpeth (Chris, 05:32)
@chris (from oz) said:
"Actually, there's something about living in a society which is dominated by one religion. There's also something about previously being a believer of that religion. You've never met someone as interested in the truth as I am. Note the lower case "t" on "truth". Any time someone unduly capitilises it, it's a synonym for "dogma"."
Well here you are! Like I said. It's all a's and b's until you get to the T, and right now no one has a handle on T. Not even to R. Glad someone is listening to their brain! Keep on believing!
@Ethan said:
"Another testimony of a false conversion. So you never really knew the Lord, and as you tried to pretend to be a Christian it interfered with the sin that you love. And now you’re jaded and hate those who love the Lord and speak His Truth. (The capital T is to remind you that it's objective and absolute. Those who don't believe in such Truth might as well make up their own morality and reality, which is the essence of atheism)."
Do we really know the Lord, or do we know OF the Lord? And how can you tell that @Chris (from Oz) didn't try to get to know Him before? I don't know you or Chris, but I can tell you both are looking for the T. Weather you find God in a book or he finds God in another book, what does it matter if you end up looking at the same God from different sides? I don't think God's dumb. If you think God is dumb, then maybe you should try to be a better friend to Him. I think God is smarter than me, so I want to be a better friend to Him. And I think God can be any kind of friend He wants to be - He's sneaky that way.
So, you have to think about your dreams, and God's dreams. If you think he got a plan for you, then he got a plan for everyone. So, do you know from a book what's God's plan? Or do you know from God? When God is as sneaky and smart as he seems, and I know I sound crazy, it don't take a step to see that God has more than a book to share. I can't say that I know the Lord, but I do try to, and want to. But my cat likes to be rubbed under the chin AND pet on the tail, you know? I don't think you can tell Chris he don't Know God when he's trying so hard. Don't worry so much about Chris' T. It ain't even T yet.
Dale said...
And just what credentials do you posess that allows you to discredit every major scientific acadamy on the face of the earth? Hmmmmm?
You made my day with that bit on nonesense!
I love the way these ignorant crackpots pronounce science invalid while never having attended a science class.
It's like a member of a school board in Ohio a while back was doing everything she could to get intelligent design included in science class. She appointed herself to review the biology texts. It turns out she has an accotiates degree in accounting and the only science class she ever had was in eighth grade HAHA!
This is absurd.
I was a biology major at UC Riverside, Dale, but my credential are meaningless in this argument. Simply Google "the hypothesis of evolution" and you will find out why evolution is a hypothesis instead of a theory. "hypothesis: An explanation of one or more phenomena in nature that can be tested by observations, experiments, or both. In order to be considered scientific, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, which means that it can be proven to be incorrect." "theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that typically incorporates many confirmed obserations, laws, and successfully verified hypotheses." - all definitions derived from PBS. I hope that helps.
To steven j.
You said...
"If you meant the first, there are no intermediates between birds and humans for the same reason that your cousin's son is not your father. Birds share ancestors with humans (early amniotes -- "reptiles" -- back in the Carboniferous period), but no bird is the ancestor of any mammal. If you define "reptile" broadly enough (to include all cold-blooded amniotes), then some of our ancestors were "reptiles," and there were a number of "reptile-human" intermediates, from Permian-period therapsids to Pleistocene Homo erectus, but there certainly weren't any scaly egg-laying humanoids."
How fortuitous that your evidence disappears into the murky mists of time when you make these broad connections between kinds. A long time ago on a goo pile near you ooze popped into life. Whoa!!!Sponenaity man I dig that about ooze ;-)
@captain howdy
Terry--Are you high on hash?
Fellow atheist, you know the fate of... hahaha. I guess maybe we should throw salt in with the bath water! So maybe not!
You know what you must do. Repent! Stop living in sins. Give yourself up to the mercy of SCIENCE before it's too late!
Do you see any aliens around, Mr. Dick Dawkins? No!?!? Beam me up Mr. Dick.
For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us. - Isaiah 33:22
Watch HBKS!
Just kidding. I love Terry. :)
Bart said...
As for your belief that Koresh was acting contrary to the Bible, that is your opinion possibly based on your interpretation of the Bible.
Just because there are many wrong interpretations of the Bible doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid and therefore no one is correct. The “It’s too confusing, everyone has their own interpretation, therefore no one can know the truth” argument is lazy and unintelligent, so let the intellectual honesty start with yourself.
People will die for a lie. They will also kill for a lie. But the Bible is still unique because those who died, did for what they “knew” was true. It wasn't a mere belief but they had seen the resurrected Jesus Christ. Explain why they would die for what they knew was a lie. You can't, because it wasn't a lie. And if you would obey the gospel and soften your callus heart, see your sin for what it is and where it will lead you, turn to the One who died for you, then your eyes would be open and you wouldn’t hate the Lord as you do right now. Living to tare down the Truth is a waste of time and energy and you’ll run out of both sooner then you think.
Evolutionists,
Thanks for your responses.
I was just kidding about the intelligence thing, no offense intended.
I was just wondering why, if all life evolved from the same source, we don't see other life forms that evolved to the same level as humans.
Why have only primates evolved so highly and not reptiles or birds or fish... or other mammals for that matter? Please no "why would they" responses. Why would they not.
Steven J,
Thank you for your kind response.
I'm an artist not a scientist.
I believe God's Word.
Creation is logical and obvious.
Evolution also makes no sense to me because it seems one-sided.
Chris (from Oz) said...
"and as you tried to pretend to be a Christian it interfered with the sin that you love."
These are bold claims for someone who has never met me. It may surprise you to learn this, but logic and rationality was why I figured out it was all make believe.
Your logic and reason are infected by sin. Man can reason himself to do anything if he has enough imagination. A serial killer can argue that it’s logical to kill people and call it “natural selection” and claim that he was a natural born killer. That’s his logic. It’s not wrong in his own mind. Human reasoning and logic aren’t objective or absolute. Even I can say that my faith in Jesus Christ is supported by reason. It's much more reasonable that this Creation has a Creator, then it happening on it's own without a cause. It's also more reasonable that we are here for a purpose rather then to just die. I find atheism is one of the most unreasonable and illogical worldview out there and with a little humility and honesty with yourself, you know it to.
How fortuitous that your evidence disappears into the murky mists of time when you make these broad connections between kinds. A long time ago on a goo pile near you ooze popped into life. Whoa!!!Sponenaity man I dig that about ooze ;-)
Who has claimed that any evidence has "disappeared"? Your response does not appear to address any of the points made within the preceding statement.
Please define "kind" within a biological context.
Simply Google "the hypothesis of evolution" and you will find out why evolution is a hypothesis instead of a theory. "hypothesis: An explanation of one or more phenomena in nature that can be tested by observations, experiments, or both. In order to be considered scientific, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, which means that it can be proven to be incorrect." "theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that typically incorporates many confirmed obserations, laws, and successfully verified hypotheses." - all definitions derived from PBS. I hope that helps.
Please explain how the definitions that you have cited show that evolution is a hypothesis, and not a theory.
Actually both are a very good evidence of the Global Flood, as well as the Grand Canyon.
Please explain how Niagra Falls, the Mississippi delta and the Grand Canyon constitute evidence for a "Global Flood".
Ethan, I am still waiting for your response, which I have to assume you do not have.
Mark W. Laine said:
To steven j.
You said...
"If you meant the first, there are no intermediates between birds and humans for the same reason that your cousin's son is not your father. Birds share ancestors with humans (early amniotes -- "reptiles" -- back in the Carboniferous period), but no bird is the ancestor of any mammal. If you define "reptile" broadly enough (to include all cold-blooded amniotes), then some of our ancestors were "reptiles," and there were a number of "reptile-human" intermediates, from Permian-period therapsids to Pleistocene Homo erectus, but there certainly weren't any scaly egg-laying humanoids."
How fortuitous that your evidence disappears into the murky mists of time when you make these broad connections between kinds. A long time ago on a goo pile near you ooze popped into life. Whoa!!!Sponenaity man I dig that about ooze ;-)
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here, or see what it has to do with what Steven J. said.
Mike & Lizette said:
Actually both are a very good evidence of the Global Flood, as well as the Grand Canyon.
Oh.
I was just wondering why, if all life evolved from the same source, we don't see other life forms that evolved to the same level as humans.
Evolution does not incorporate "levels". Your confusion is apparently rooted in a lack of understanding of evolution.
Why have only primates evolved so highly and not reptiles or birds or fish... or other mammals for that matter?
Evolution does not address on imply a concept of "high". Things do not evolve "highly", they merely evolve based upon the physical characteristics most advantageous and conducive for sufficient reproductive success for a given population in a given environment.
Please no "why would they" responses. Why would they not.
You are attempting to shift the burden of proof. If you assert that a population of organisms should have evolved differently than they have, the burden of proof is upon you to explain why this evolution should have occurred. Until you can provide such a justification, then the best response to your inquiry is to state that no selection pressures existed that favoured a shift toward what is meant by "higher", as you have used the term.
I believe God's Word.
Please explain how you have determined that what you believe is "God's Word" actually is "God's Word".
Creation is logical and obvious.
Please explain how "Creation" is "logical and obvious".
Evolution also makes no sense to me because it seems one-sided.
In what way is evolution "one-sided", and how does this affect the comprehensibility of the theory?
@atheists know everything
You wrote:
Why have only primates evolved so highly and not reptiles or birds or fish... or other mammals for that matter? Please no "why would they" responses. Why would they not.
Evolution doesn't really have a goal nor is it a ladder of some kind, so you can't say humans are more highly evolved than other creatures. We may have quite an impressive brain, but cats are much more suited to their environment of catching smaller prey. Certainly, the Gorilla is far stronger than any human. Let's not forget the impressive nose a dog has that allows it to search for food so well.
To be more technical, you might define "more evolved" as having more generations for natural selection to work and increase the amount of information stored in the gnome from the the environment.
So, based on that understanding, evolution predicts that the "most evolved" species would have to be unicelular and have a rapid reproductive cycle.
Lo and behold, the mighty amoeba has the largest genome of all species on earth.
The amoeba has 670,000,000,000 base pairs where as humans only have 2,900,000,000.
Google "Amoeba largest genome" for the source of this information.
ethan said:
Your logic and reason are infected by sin.
How do you know?
It's much more reasonable that this Creation has a Creator, then it happening on it's own without a cause.
In what way?
It's also more reasonable that we are here for a purpose rather then to just die.
Again, in what way?
I find atheism is one of the most unreasonable and illogical worldview out there...
How so?
...and with a little humility and honesty with yourself, you know it to.
How do you know he knows this?
It's much more reasonable that this Creation has a Creator, then it happening on it's own without a cause.
Your assertion is based upon circular reasoning. Any "Creation" will, by definition, have a "Creator", however you have not established that what you assert to be a "Creation" is actually a "Creation". Until you can do this, you cannot rationally use the term "Creation" to infer the action of a "Creator".
It's also more reasonable that we are here for a purpose rather then to just die.
Why is your position the more reasonable position?
I find atheism is one of the most unreasonable and illogical worldview out there and with a little humility and honesty with yourself, you know it to.
You are engaging in the "poisoning the well" fallacy, as you are directly stating that individuals who do not accept that your position is valid are dishonest and lacking in humility. This is a pre-emptive "ad-hominem" attack against any individual who disputes your assertion, but it is not a rational demonstration of the factual validity of your position.
Atheists know everything said:
I was just wondering why, if all life evolved from the same source, we don't see other life forms that evolved to the same level as humans.
What do you mean by "level"?
Why have only primates evolved so highly and not reptiles or birds or fish... or other mammals for that matter?
What does "evolved so highly" mean?
Ethan said:
Explain why they would die for what they knew was a lie. You can't, because it wasn't a lie.
How is that different from saying, "Explain why a group of young men would fly airplanes into buildings for what they knew was a lie. You can't, because it wasn't a lie."
Atheists know everything! said:
Evolutionists,
Thanks for your responses.
I was just kidding about the intelligence thing, no offense intended.
I was just wondering why, if all life evolved from the same source, we don't see other life forms that evolved to the same level as humans.
Before there was a theory of evolution, there was a concept in natural philosophy called the scala natura, the "scale of nature" or "ladder of creation," which arranged all living things on a scale from "lowest" and most rock-like to "highest" and most angelic or godlike. The first evolutionists, such as Lamarck, took this idea over and turned it into the "evolutionary ladder," in which generation after generation, lineages climbed up that ladder (with new, single-celled life forming by spontaneous generation on the bottom rung) until they reached the top of the ladder, occupied by our angelic selves.
Charles Darwin tossed this version of evolution out; he wrote, in his notebooks, "do not use the terms 'higher' and 'lower'." He did not, of course, always take his own advice, but his theory replaced the "evolutionary ladder," in which there were clear "levels" of evolutionary advancement, with an "evolutionary tree" in which there were only different ways to be adapted to diverse environments.
So your question, from the standpoint of current evolutionary theory, is wrong: there are not "levels" arranged clearly above or below one another. There are organisms that are more or less complex (at least, it certainly looks that way, although "complexity" is a harder concept to define and measure than one might intuitively think), but organisms can lose complexity over the course of evolution as well as gain it: the loss of limbs and reduction of one lung in most snakes is a case of evolutionary advancement, as much as the gain of hair and mammary glands in mammals.
Why have only primates evolved so highly and not reptiles or birds or fish... or other mammals for that matter? Please no "why would they" responses. Why would they not.
There are trade-offs in evolution. Warm-bloodedness enables one to cope with changes in temperature better than cold-blooded creatures, and to remain active in cold weather, but it drastically increases an animal's need for food (and therefore makes it easier to starve to death). Big brains have a similar trade-off: greater learning ability and flexibility in behavior need to be weighed against the immense needs brains have for oxygen and nutrients. A big brain makes you easier to kill, if, in some cases, better at avoiding things that might kill you.
There are only so many ecological niches where greatly enhanced intelligence will "pay for itself." Our ancestors seem to have stumbled into one of them, and we stumbled out. It's been suggested that this involved large social groups and the evolution of in-group politics of the sort that doesn't exist in flocks of birds, herds of deer, or schools of fish.
It has also been argued, with some cogency, that cold-blooded metabolism isn't conducive to high intelligence: lizard and fish brains are just too sluggish and temperature-dependent to be bright. Birds have other problems: most of them fly, which puts severe limits on body and brain size, and they've lost the grasping limbs their ancestors had, which makes the ability to imagine and design tools less useful (though I believe some birds do use thorns and the like as crude tools already).
If you follow this blog and the comments, you may have heard of recent reports of the evolution of the ability to metabolize citrate among E. coli bacteria, which don't normally have that ability. The actual point of these reports, though, was that this ability was contingent on earlier mutations that were either neutral or only slightly beneficial, but set the stage for the novel ability. It may just be that human-level intelligence is hard to evolve, and no other lineage got the necessary lucky breaks.
Steven J,Thank you for your kind response.
I'm an artist not a scientist.
I believe God's Word.
Creation is logical and obvious.
Evolution also makes no sense to me because it seems one-sided.
That last comment is rather opaque: "one-sided?" I cannot reply to it as I have no idea what it means.
Believing God's word has meant different things to different people. In the 16th century (indeed, for some Christians, today) it meant believing that the sun orbited the Earth. For some Christians, up till about the sixth century AD, it meant believing that the Earth was flat and the sky a solid dome over our heads. Even for many creationists today, on the other hand, believing that the Bible is God's word does not prevent them from accepting the Big Bang and a 4.55 billion year old Earth, and for some Christians, it does not mean rejecting the idea of common ancestry or natural mechanisms for evolution.
Mark W Laine replied to me:
"If you meant the first, there are no intermediates between birds and humans for the same reason that your cousin's son is not your father. Birds share ancestors with humans (early amniotes -- "reptiles" -- back in the Carboniferous period), but no bird is the ancestor of any mammal. If you define "reptile" broadly enough (to include all cold-blooded amniotes), then some of our ancestors were "reptiles," and there were a number of "reptile-human" intermediates, from Permian-period therapsids to Pleistocene Homo erectus, but there certainly weren't any scaly egg-laying humanoids."
How fortuitous that your evidence disappears into the murky mists of time when you make these broad connections between kinds. A long time ago on a goo pile near you ooze popped into life. Whoa!!!Sponenaity man I dig that about ooze ;-)
The connections between sauropsida (reptiles and birds) and synapsida (mammals and extinct mammaloids) have not disappeared: some fossil evidence (the Carboniferous anapsid amniotes that resemble both the earliest diapsid reptiles (lizards, snakes, crocodilians and dinosaurs) and the earliest synapsids. But the easiest way to trace the connections is through the nested hierarchy of genetic homologies in living species. Just as languages can be compared and grouped into families and superfamilies, or as copies of the New Testament can be grouped into "families" of documents copied from a common source, which was copied from a still earlier common source, until you get back to the lost originals, so the genomes of birds and humans fall into similar sets that can be nested, group inside group, until you find a group ("amniotes") that includes both and that seems (based on fossils and molecular clocks) to have split into two main groups over three million centuries ago.
Jason said...
How is that different from saying, "Explain why a group of young men would fly airplanes into buildings for what they knew was a lie. You can't, because it wasn't a lie."
The Muslims that murdered (they didn't just die for their faith) did so for what they "believed," not for what they saw and knew to be true. None of them saw the 70 virgins promised.
The NT authors and apostles were willing to die for what they saw and knew to be true. They proclaimed what they saw with their own eyes – the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It wasn’t only a belief. If they knew what they were saying was a lie, it would be highly unlikely that every one of them would be willing to suffer, and die they way many of them did. Others Christians have also died for believing their testimony, but the ones who died for what they "saw" adds more credibility to their story.
Do you see the difference?
The NT authors and apostles were willing to die for what they saw and knew to be true. They proclaimed what they saw with their own eyes – the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It wasn’t only a belief. If they knew what they were saying was a lie, it would be highly unlikely that every one of them would be willing to suffer, and die they way many of them did. Others Christians have also died for believing their testimony, but the ones who died for what they "saw" adds more credibility to their story.
Can you demonstrate the accuracy of your claims? Can you show that the apostles to whom you refer did actually see what you claim that they saw?
atheists know everything said:
Why have only primates evolved so highly and not reptiles or birds or fish... or other mammals for that matter? Please no "why would they" responses. Why would they not.
Try flying off a high cliff and laugh at all the birds you meet on the way down and tell them how much more evolved you are. Remember to flap those arms.
Try sitting on the ocean floor for a week without any accessories. Take note as the fishes amaze at your superiority.
Kick a lion in the backside. This is always a great test of evolved superiority.
Get a serious infection and refuse any science-based treatments then tell us how much more evolved than bacteria we are.
Of course, I could ask "Why did God make humans superior and not reptiles or birds or fish... or other mammals for that matter? Please no " because He said He did" responses. WHY did He?
Kudos for mentioning "other mammals" though. At least you accept that we are animals. That puts you streets ahead of Ray.
Ethan said:
The Muslims that murdered (they didn't just die for their faith) did so for what they "believed," not for what they saw and knew to be true. None of them saw the 70 virgins promised.
The NT authors and apostles were willing to die for what they saw and knew to be true. They proclaimed what they saw with their own eyes – the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It wasn’t only a belief. If they knew what they were saying was a lie, it would be highly unlikely that every one of them would be willing to suffer, and die they way many of them did. Others Christians have also died for believing their testimony, but the ones who died for what they "saw" adds more credibility to their story.
Do you see the difference?
You are building your conclusion into your premise. That's a logical fallacy called "begging the question". So no, you have not demonstrated the difference.
Ethan said: "Just because there are many wrong interpretations of the Bible doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid and therefore no one is correct. The “It’s too confusing, everyone has their own interpretation, therefore no one can know the truth” argument is lazy and unintelligent, so let the intellectual honesty start with yourself."
Where did I say which interpretation is correct? There is so many conflicting statements in the bible, that I think most anybody who reads it could find a way to interpret it in a way to support their preset beliefs. You dismissed David Koresh's interpretation out of hand without giving a single reason for your belief that his interpretation was incorrect or that your interpretation is correct. I pointed out reason to dismiss him out of hand because he probably had a better understanding of the bible that you or anybody here. Nowhere did I argue, "there are too many interpretation that none of them can be true." I am simply making the point that nobody has given any reason or proof to show that their interpretation is true - big difference.
"People will die for a lie. They will also kill for a lie."
I couldn't agree with you more.
"But the Bible is still unique because those who died, did for what they “knew” was true. It wasn't a mere belief but they had seen the resurrected Jesus Christ."
You are assuming that those people saw a resurrection. You have no proof of this. You have FAITH that it happened.
The Branch Davidians were in the presence of David Koresh for years and believed that he was another coming of god. Why was their belief any sillier than yours?
"Explain why they would die for what they knew was a lie. You can't, because it wasn't a lie."
Why did people drink the Flavor-Aid when Jim Jones told them to do so. Obviously many of them sincerely believed that Jim Jones was correct. You and I can say it was a lie, but many of those people in the Peoples' Temple didn't. I agree that people don't willingly die for what they believe is a lie, but people can be tricked into believing all sorts of things.
"And if you would obey the gospel and soften your callus heart, see your sin for what it is and where it will lead you, turn to the One who died for you, then your eyes would be open and you wouldn’t hate the Lord as you do right now. Living to tare down the Truth is a waste of time and energy and you’ll run out of both sooner then you think."
You still have provided absolutely no proof that your religion is true. I have no need to worry about the consequences alleged above until somebody provides such proof.
{{{Forgive me if I find your position, a bit ridiculous.
-ACE}}}
[REPLY]
I am sure you do. You do not need forgiveness from me. I am not the one you sin against.
In your current condition (lost without Christ) you will never do anything more than just try to tear apart every Christian truth. They will indeed all seem ridiculous to you.
At the same time your arguments look quite silly to me. I see how hopelessly you try to understand something that only the Spirit of God can teach you and reveal to you - and I am very sad for you.
I know that there is a hope and a reason to life - that it isn't all an "accident" and that nature isn't an uncaring originator of common descent - and arbitrary taker of life. I know, not becuase I am arrogant - but becasue I was humbled and repented and accepted Jesus to do for me what I could not do for myself. I now live in awe that He allows me to carry His message to others - and whether they listen of not isn't my job - it is only to carry the message.
Blessings,
Patti
{{{Jarz of clay aiken said"
What is it exactly that us atheist love doing so much that we don't want to give it up? }}}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Living life according to your own godless values. Elevating your intellect above your soul.
Blessings,
Patti
Andy said:
{{{So if I drive my friend's car and get caught by a speed camera, is it okay if I let him pay the fine and cop the penalty points? If I do this, does that absolve me of my speeding?
Is it also okay if I rob a store and then, when questioned, I tell the police my neighbour did it and let him go to jail instead of me? Does this mean I didn't really do anything wrong after all? }}}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[REPLY]
No, you are bringing this back to having a person absolve you of your sin (and your conscience tells you you have sin whether you care to admit it or not.)
Skeptics keep trying to deal with their sin by trying some other way that they invent. The only way is to humble yourself before God and repent. When you are brought to that place - and you repent - you will never again need these absurd scenarios.
Blessings,
Patti
Post a Comment