You are making the false assumption that knowing the truth about origins, which is what this discussion is about, is determined by the number of scientific papers one has read, or that the conclusions pertaining to origins cannot be reduced to arguments understandable to the common public. I don't need to account for what papers I have read or haven't read in order to defend something that involves issues that involve human conjecture rather than being observable, repeatable or testable science. I am an apologist, that makes me "defensive", like it or not.snr5557 said:
I wish evolution was true ... because I would have Wings
- Thread starter Arnie Manitoba
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
What about the Flying Fox (Pteropus)
The oldest ancestors of the genus Pteropus to be unearthed appear in the fossil record almost exactly as they are today
35 million years and no signs of evolution when compared to living examples today
How does the evolutionist account for that. ??
Here is one in The Columbus Zoo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8liMvCKeiQ
The oldest ancestors of the genus Pteropus to be unearthed appear in the fossil record almost exactly as they are today
35 million years and no signs of evolution when compared to living examples today
How does the evolutionist account for that. ??
Here is one in The Columbus Zoo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8liMvCKeiQ
I think it's fairly obvious why Uppsala spent so much time dodging the question. He simply hasn't studied the science (his posts make that clear) but his pride won't allow him to admit it.
The sad thing is, he lost far more credibility by juking and jiving than if he'd just had been honest in the first place and said "I haven't really studied much science".
Arnie, you've already shown that trying to explain science to you is a pointless exercise, so why you think anyone would try to do so again is beyond me.
The sad thing is, he lost far more credibility by juking and jiving than if he'd just had been honest in the first place and said "I haven't really studied much science".
Arnie, you've already shown that trying to explain science to you is a pointless exercise, so why you think anyone would try to do so again is beyond me.
I haven't dodged any questions, in fact it is quite the opposite. And if my pride is what this is all about then why don't you take the time to check out CAREFULLY throughout this thread who has boasted about studies and who hasn't, without even pointing out why studies that filter out divine intervention are closer to the truth that believing in the Biblical account. I have appealed to you to show me where your faith in the Bible is any more scientific than mine, but you have failed to do so.. repeatedly!River Jordan said:
Where exactly did I say that?
In any case.. the sad thing is that you falsely suppose that credibilty concerning origins, which is beyond the reach of science, pivits on how much science one has studied. Get back to me when you have a solid argument that goes beyond appealing to authorities that don't have that kind of authority.
And you accuse others of dodging the question. Oh, the irony!River Jordan said:
Uppsala,
You can claim that you haven't been dodging questions, but this thread testifies otherwise. You simply have not answered one basic, straightforward question, what "sides of this issue" have you studied?
As far as this, "show me where your faith in the Bible is any more scientific than mine" not only have you not asked me that before, but IMO the question itself further confirms my earlier point about you using scripture in a scientific context.
Also, your declarations about what science can and can't do don't really carry much weight, given your general ignorance of science.
Finally, if you think not taking the time to explain complex subject matter to a person who continually shows that he doesn't pay attention to the answers is dodging, the I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that.
You can claim that you haven't been dodging questions, but this thread testifies otherwise. You simply have not answered one basic, straightforward question, what "sides of this issue" have you studied?
As far as this, "show me where your faith in the Bible is any more scientific than mine" not only have you not asked me that before, but IMO the question itself further confirms my earlier point about you using scripture in a scientific context.
Also, your declarations about what science can and can't do don't really carry much weight, given your general ignorance of science.
Finally, if you think not taking the time to explain complex subject matter to a person who continually shows that he doesn't pay attention to the answers is dodging, the I suppose we'll just have to disagree on that.
This thread actually testifies to the following:River Jordan said:
1) that you misquoted me despite the fact that you claimed to quote me "word for word". I don't need to answer questions that are dishonestly posed. That is not "dodging" the question, it is forcing you to pose the question honestly. If you do that then I will answer the question. No problem.
2) that you are being hypocritical, since you STILL haven't answered MY question about what your point is.
I asked you several questions relating to Jesus resurrection and how it relates to science, and you tried to claim there was a distinction between Jesus resurrection and creation saying that Jesus resurrection was "exclusively miraculous" whereas creation was not, DEPITE the fact that you haven't provided anything to support that assertion.
Also, you haven't explained why, if what the genesis account says is true, it doesn't apply in a scientific account.
Neither do your puffed up opinions about what you know carry much weight if you think that science has the ability to time-travel and verify what it cannot observe.
What answers that have you taken the time to explain do you think I am dodging?
If you're going to accuse me of misquoting you, then you need to show where. Otherwise it's just an empty accusation.
I answered that way back in post #118...
When you said you had "looked at all sides of this debate", I figured that would have included something from the "science side". So I asked you what specifically from the science side you had studied, and that's when you got all weird and was like "who said anything about science". I just wanted to know what specifically you had studied from science. That's all.
And if you haven't noticed, you're still being evasive and not simply saying what two sides you've studied.
Finally, you're not keeping up with the discussion. You copied my response to Arnie and implied that I was dodging his question. So I explained why I didn't see any point in trying to go over a complex topic with Arnie, since he's shown that he doesn't pay attention anyways. And now apparently you think I was talking about you.
I answered that way back in post #118...
When you said you had "looked at all sides of this debate", I figured that would have included something from the "science side". So I asked you what specifically from the science side you had studied, and that's when you got all weird and was like "who said anything about science". I just wanted to know what specifically you had studied from science. That's all.
And if you haven't noticed, you're still being evasive and not simply saying what two sides you've studied.
Exactly. I answered, yet above you tried to claim I was dodging.
Because this is the ffirst time you've asked that. And the answer is that "what Genesis says" is a matter of interpretation and faith. That's why I was asking you questions about days, evenings and mornings.
Finally, you're not keeping up with the discussion. You copied my response to Arnie and implied that I was dodging his question. So I explained why I didn't see any point in trying to go over a complex topic with Arnie, since he's shown that he doesn't pay attention anyways. And now apparently you think I was talking about you.
Sure!River Jordan said:
During my discussions here with you the ONLY time I used the word "study", in any of its forms and in relation to my own personal studies, is in the following comments:
"It was a very technical document for someone who hasn't studied physics."
And:
"Why would I need to study the "science side"?"
And:
"Why do I need to study radiometric dating in order to understand that no one knows what conditions existed in the unobservable past?"
I was very clear in pointing out that my position is not based on studies, but on the fact that truth concerning these issues is a gift:
"Truth is a gift. If God reveals the truth to a toothless old woman in Siberia (no offence to them) who knows nothing about science, then don't you think it is a little presumptuous of you to assume that those who are schooled and intelligent are those who are not being deceived? The wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight.
For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
When you asked me to specify what from the science side you studied, I answered, "Why would I need to study the "science side"?"
DESPITE that, you ignore what I have said, pull my comments out of context, and put quotation marks around things I NEVER said, such as
"I've studied both sides of the issue"
Which is something I never said. And neither did I say:
"I haven't really studied much science".
That is far from quoting anyone directly, "word for word".
When I make my position as CLEAR as I have, I find misquotes like that both evasive and deceptive.
You also STILL haven't answered my question about what your point is.
You haven't explained why you think "what Genesis says" is a matter of interpretation and faith whereas the gospel accounts are not. There are many people who do exactly the same thing with the gospels as you do with Genesis. There are people who claim to be Christians that maintain that Jesus was not resurrected physically, but spiritually.
I was responding to the comment you made in the previous post, a post which you adressed to ME, started off with "Uppsala,". After that you gave nothing that indicated that you were giving a response to Arnie, so if you don't think I am keeping up with the discussion then maybe you should make is a little bit clearer to whom you are responding, don't you think?
I am a member of an engineering and aviation forum and one of the brilliant engineers in Germany brought up the theory of evolution and how the wings of a seagull are different than the wings of a bumble bee. He also has a degree in biology and is a staunch atheist and evolutionist
So I asked him why mankind do not have wings .... ever since we saw birds in the air we want to be up there with them.
His reply ??
He said millions of humans would have to fall from trees for millions of years and then they would eventually end up with wings.
I kid you not.
So I asked him why mankind do not have wings .... ever since we saw birds in the air we want to be up there with them.
His reply ??
He said millions of humans would have to fall from trees for millions of years and then they would eventually end up with wings.
I kid you not.
How long has this debate been going on about what sides of the debate you have studied? Wouldn't it take less effort to simply just state what sides?UppsalaDragby said:
Uppsala,
Seriously? Your basis for all that is when you said "I approached this subject with an open mind. I have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say.", that you in no way shape or form meant that you had "studied" anything?
Seriously? Seriously?
When you said you had "looked at all sides of this debate", I figured that would have included something from the "science side". So I asked you what specifically from the science side you had studied, and that's when you got all weird and was like "who said anything about science". I just wanted to know what specifically you had studied from science. That's all.
So if your answer all along is that you haven't studied (or "looked into", or "examined", or whatever word is really, really important to you) anything from the scientific side of the evolution/creationism issue, then just say so.
Seriously? Your basis for all that is when you said "I approached this subject with an open mind. I have spent years and years looking at what both sides have to say.", that you in no way shape or form meant that you had "studied" anything?
Seriously? Seriously?
Wow. This just gets more and more strange with every post. Not only did I answer your question in post #118, I re-posted that answer in the post you just responded to! Here it is again....
When you said you had "looked at all sides of this debate", I figured that would have included something from the "science side". So I asked you what specifically from the science side you had studied, and that's when you got all weird and was like "who said anything about science". I just wanted to know what specifically you had studied from science. That's all.
So if your answer all along is that you haven't studied (or "looked into", or "examined", or whatever word is really, really important to you) anything from the scientific side of the evolution/creationism issue, then just say so.
First of all, I never said the gospel accounts are not matters of interpretation and faith. Second, I tried like crazy to demonstrate that the Genesis creation accounts are a matter of interpretation and faith (by asking you to explain how you read the two, and by raising the issue of "day", "morning", and "evening"), but you absolutely refused to engage.
What would have taken less time and effort would have been if you and River Jordan had paid more attention to what I said in the first place, told me what your point was, and then proceeded from there.snr5557 said:
Yes! Seriously!!!
As I pointed out to snr:
"You are making the false assumption that knowing the truth about origins, which is what this discussion is about, is determined by the number of scientific papers one has read, or that the conclusions pertaining to origins cannot be reduced to arguments understandable to the common public. I don't need to account for what papers I have read or haven't read in order to defend something that involves issues that involve human conjecture rather than being observable, repeatable or testable science."
Now you can pretend that your knowledge in these matters is first hand, but they are not - they have been handed over to you by others. You put your faith in them and then come here and act as if you know it all. I'm sorry, you don't impress me at all.
That's funny, you said this has gone from strange to funny to sad... now it's back to strange again. I guess there is hope for me.
That didn't answer my question at all. Firstly, you need to clarify what the "science side" is. And secondly, I never used the word "studied" except in the comments i quoted above. And thirdly, I don't need to "specify" anything here unless you "specify" what your point is. The fact that you decided to play games by badgering me with questions instead of addressing the issues involved shows exactly who is the evasive one in this thread.
I have done EXACTLY what I said I have done. The fact that you decided to twist words is your problem, not mine. If you had been a little less rude on this forum then perhaps I would have explained it in more detail for you. If I find someone with a good attitude and who isn't evasive then I take the time to respond as best I can. If someone is only going to twist my words around anyway then why should I even bother?
Don't make things up! I most definitely engaged in the issue of day, morning and evening in post #134.
Now YOU claimed there was a distinction between Jesus resurrection and creation saying that Jesus resurrection was "exclusively miraculous" whereas creation was not, despite the fact that you haven't provided anything to support that assertion.
You are wasting your time. Theistic evolutionists are a special bunch. We try to correct them with scripture...they accuse us of hating science / make us chase their tail....whilst the unsaved scientists pushing evolution laugh at them....the suggestion of it being guidedUppsalaDragby said:
...who would serve a God that guided natural selection over millions of years? Why support science and then a god that has no observable evidence... No unsaved atheist pushing evolution will ever do so in the direction of it being guided by God. If we had to corner any Christian studying evolution...how honest will they be with their attempts to do so whilst believing it is guided? They are hypocrites in their studies. It really is just a matter of time before every piece of scripture is disregarded as myth.
The bottom line is... it takes a revelation of Jesus from the Holy Spirit to believe Jesus is more then a human 1 Cor 12:3. We must not be ignorant to the fact that many can't read the bible as inspired as its writers and grasp the intention of the extremely honest Author.
No unsaved atheist pushing evolution will ever do so in the direction of it being guided by God.
No unsaved atheist pushing plate tectonics will ever do so in the direction of it being guided by God.
No unsaved atheist pushing heliocentrism will ever do so in the direction of it being guided by God.
No unsaved atheist pushing volcanism will ever do so in the direction of it being guided by God.
No unsaved atheist pushing temperature gradients will ever do so in the direction of it being guided by God.
See how ridiculous that sounds?
No unsaved atheist pushing plate tectonics will ever do so in the direction of it being guided by God.
No unsaved atheist pushing heliocentrism will ever do so in the direction of it being guided by God.
No unsaved atheist pushing volcanism will ever do so in the direction of it being guided by God.
No unsaved atheist pushing temperature gradients will ever do so in the direction of it being guided by God.
See how ridiculous that sounds?
"The bottom line is... it takes a revelation of Jesus from the Holy Spirit to believe Jesus is more then a human 1 Cor 12:3. We must not be ignorant to the fact that many can't read the bible as inspired as its writers and grasp the intention of the extremely honest Author."
Amen KingJ, they don't wanna read this or anything like it. It's amazing to me.
Amen KingJ, they don't wanna read this or anything like it. It's amazing to me.
What is ridiculous is implying that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is a flat-earther, thinks that the sky is green instead of blue, should not use a computer, as well as all the other fallacious arguments that you have been using here. You come here with a puffed up attitude, spit out a string of ridiculous arguments, assume that truth is the reward of science, start off a big mud-slinging campaign against creationists, and then start crying when people question whether or not you are a Christian. You prance into a Christian forum and as far as I can see, all you have done here is preach evolution. I pointed out another forum that is more dedicated to this particular debate and then you complain to me privately, after a few exchanges in one or two threads, that they aren't "experts", as though you, River Jordan, at the age of 26, have the competence to judge who is or is not an expert. You are a joke.River Jordan said:
Indeed, unless God shines the light upon the soul, it shall not see. 2 Cor.4:6 " For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. "Mr.Bride said:
Just like it took Gods command to for light to be on the 1st day of creation, so He also must command the light to be upon those whom He so chooses.
And the light on the 1st day of creation was not the sun. It was the light of God. The sun, an artificial light, would later replace that light. So God directed the 24 hour day arouund the first day of creation. The evening and the morning were the first day.
If one does not know Jesus Christ, one does not know God, for HE is the Light.
Quantrill
Using the same criteria by which you evaluate evolution, how do you know the earth is round?UppsalaDragby said:
You don't think it's just a little hypocritical for a group of people to use a computer and the internet to decry scientists as atheists who are out to sway people away from God?
The childish personal stuff aside, whether I'm a Christian isn't an issue. If you think it is, please explain why.
That's for several reasons.
1) I am a Christian youth minister as well as a professional scientist. Kids in our ministry bring up this subject a lot, especially to me.
2) I see this as a major hindrance to our ability to preach the Gospel to the lost. As long as Christians keep tying demonstrably false arguments to Christianity, we are guaranteed to lose converts.
3) There are a lot of threads on this subject, and they're very active. It's really all I have time for.
Using the same criteria by which you evaluate evolution, how do you know the earth is round?UppsalaDragby said:
You don't think it's just a little hypocritical for a group of people to use a computer and the internet to decry scientists as atheists who are out to sway people away from God?
The childish personal stuff aside, whether I'm a Christian isn't an issue. If you think it is, please explain why.
That's for several reasons.
1) I am a Christian youth minister as well as a professional scientist. Kids in our ministry bring up this subject a lot, especially to me.
2) I see this as a major hindrance to our ability to preach the Gospel to the lost. As long as Christians keep tying demonstrably false arguments to Christianity, we are guaranteed to lose converts.
3) There are a lot of threads on this subject, and they're very active. It's really all I have time for.
Again, resorting to childish personal insults noted. It's sad that you and other fundamentalists here have to sink to that level over and over again. It's very revealing too. Does my presence here make you angry? Are you like KingJ and some of the other fundies here who think that I should be made to "shut my mouth", sit down, and listen to my elders? Is that how you deal with everyone who's different than you in real life?
Do you guys want this forum to be more like your churches, where dissent is not tolerated?
Finally regarding that other forum, you referred me there in the context of discussing science with people who are better qualified. But as AFAICT, such expertise is sorely lacking and it's a lot like my interactions here (variations on the "were you there" theme, and personal insults).
Real life or whatever River Jordan, you preach nonsense you'll be rebuked. Everything anyone says to you is wrong or mean if it's not agreeing with your standpoint. I won't have no pity-party with you. Ya gets no sympathy from me. I do pray your eyes will come open by the grace of God. Other than that I'll rebuke, expose, root out, and destroy any lie of the devil. Don't you know we're at war and this ain't no part-time job for him. He's constantly working. You think I ain't.
God is also constantly working to unveil these devilish plans of his. He neither slumbers nor sleeps. Take this how you wanna. I speak/write in love. May God bless you.
P.S. You're being truly loved and you think it's hatred. Reminds me of a saying by C.S. Lewis: Pure, spiritual, intellectual love shot from their faces like barbed-lightning. It was so unlike the love we experience, that it's expression could easily be mistaken for ferocity.
God is also constantly working to unveil these devilish plans of his. He neither slumbers nor sleeps. Take this how you wanna. I speak/write in love. May God bless you.
P.S. You're being truly loved and you think it's hatred. Reminds me of a saying by C.S. Lewis: Pure, spiritual, intellectual love shot from their faces like barbed-lightning. It was so unlike the love we experience, that it's expression could easily be mistaken for ferocity.
- Status
Similar threads
