Thank you Untellectual. May it be for you also and let your countenance shine from within your soul!
Let Your Guardian Angel Lead You,
Michael
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Thank you Untellectual. May it be for you also and let your countenance shine from within your soul!
Let Your Guardian Angel Lead You,
Michael
I prefer to be led by God and Jesus than your guardian angel.
Wonderful Post, noguru!! Just at the right time and in the right instances. I do get upset sometimes. Even Jesus got upset when he overturned the moneychangers tables and said 'this is a house for prayer, and you have turned it into a den of thieves.' When I'm not quoting from the Bible word from word, I don't use quotes. I use half-quotes (apostrophes). Thank you again, buddy!!
May God Overfill Your Cup With His Good Spirit. You are the Cup/vessel!!
Michael
Dear Untellectual,
My guardian angel is acting on behalf of the Lord. The angel reports to the Lord if there is something he cannot do, or something is wrong. God is like a corporation. He has servants and angels helping Him. He's not going to go to each separate person and guide you through every second of your life. Don't worry, you're in good hands. I know you don't agree with me, so don't write back with that. I've got to go and get something to eat.
Much Love To You Untellectual,
Michael
My guardian angel is acting on behalf of the Lord. The angel reports to the Lord if there is something he cannot do, or something is wrong. God is like a corporation. He has servants and angels helping Him. He's not going to go to each separate person and guide you through every second of your life. Don't worry, you're in good hands. I know you don't agree with me, so don't write back with that. I've got to go and get something to eat.
Much Love To You Untellectual,
Michael
I don't think you or I know who my guardian angel is. Certainly not a human.
Just so you are aware, Michael says some of his angels are really good cooks. On their days off they moonlight at the grill at McDonalds.
alwight
New member
I'm not sure there is any great scope for being creative at McDonalds. :think:
Huh?
I don't even know what it means to moonlight. And why would this be an angel or a cook? And why McDonalds?
alwight
New member
You have a lot to learn.
I realize that on the issue of trusting science, you and I are pretty much in lock step. But I would like to see “our side” engage in a whole lot less of what can best be called “poisoning the well” – trying to portray the opponent as someone not to be trusted, rather than focusing on their arguments. A sample of the ways you referred to untellectual and his posts:
| “YEC's … chose to belittle or ignore any intellectual ideas which seem to contradict their theological convictions by choosing names like "Untellectual” “Your screen name is becoming more and more appropriate” “I doubt you have any valuable discipline to offer. I think your views are based on a loose cannon type approach to the world. That coupled with sloppy thinking is a recipe for disaster” “godly discipline … you lack that. You may try to compensate for that by trying to attach yourself to "Biblical" principles” “you might want to add simple logic to your list of weaknesses” “judging from the current bent you are on, I certainly will not be intimidated by your empty threats of losing my salvation” “why are you even trying?” “stop posting Biblical verses to try an bolster your illogic” “Is this just a platform from which you can broadcast your theological views under the guise of science (though you admittedly know little about the subject” “Do you think I am stupid?” “Your logic is faulty, your knowledge is horrendous, and I think you ought to refrain from using poor logic when it is clear you are. Yet, even after all this you will not admit to what you are doing. You will simply slink away mumbling "But I am just trying to point people towards scripture." “You fail miserably in lots of ways” “any further discussion with you would be a waste of time and effort. Keep moving on, please” “you cannot simply hide the evidence by claiming "I do not believe". You are a fool” “You are getting increasingly slippery … Do you know what that usually signifies? “trotting out your empty bluster.” “Your ideas are as clear as a brook right after a sudden intense summer rain. That part is transparent” “A person who is incompetent eventually shows their true colors.” “Will you answer these questions squarely? I doubt it. It serves your purpose to conceal the weaknesses of your argument, because it has no strengths. And you think that claims of divine authority can rescue you from that fate.” “you try to conceal your non-scientific claims with fancy sounding "science" talk.” “because you are trying to deceive us.” “You still have not escaped the reality of empiricism, as much as you are trying to wiggle out of it.” “Untellectual, you certainly are a slippery fellow. I do not trust you as far as I can throw you.” |
As to my objection to focusing on philosophy, first let me quote a few extracts:
| “what objective criteria have you used to determine that?” (This phrase appears over and over.) “So you do accept empiricism as a way to verify/falsify claims for some things? What percentage? What objective criteria do you use to determine when we cannot use empiricism?” “Is this correspondence subjected to any objective criteria…” “what would you call a "subjective truth" that is not an accurate representation of the "objective truth"? |
In decades of involvement in science, including thousands of planning meetings, untold hours in the lab, and numerous intense discussions with scientists, I can’t recall a single time when we agonized over the understandings of what was meant by “subjective truth”, “objective criteria”, or “objective truth”. We always used simple straightforward English to define our objective and discuss what we actually concluded.
And, if you two pick up that silliness where you left it months ago, and try to continue it, then all bets are off on my part.
Last edited:
I was meaning to have a discussion about truth, and I believe God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible are legitimate sources of truth.You have a lot to learn.
alwight
New member
Fair enough but Michael has angels who help with the cooking apparently, but personally I'm not totally convinced of the truth of that.
I think you mean to talk about the Michael on TOL I was just conversing with?
The Bible talks about the devil and his angels.
I know that Michael in the Bible is the archangel, if we can use that term. A prince really?
Jude refers to Michael as well.
But my point was that I don't think Michael on TOL knows anything about my guardian angel.
Does the Bible speak of guardian angels? That would be my source of truth.
Moonlighting - The Free Dictionary
To work at another job, often at night …
You will have to ask Michael that one.
Maybe they see an opportunity to put a blessing on each hamburger?
I see no problem with praying at work. I don't know what you mean by a blessing.
alwight
New member
You seem like very ethereal person.
Whoever Michael is (archangel or prince) he is on the side of good, not the side of the devil.You seem like very ethereal person.
Note how this Modern House Fly, which Was trapped in Amber, Supposedly, 12 Million Years ago, has not Changed at all Anatomically.
Please Feel Free to Explain, how in 12 Million Years this House Fly has not Changed Anatomically, When you consider that Man is Supposed to have Changed Anatomically in 3.2 Million Years, From an Ape Like Being?
=M=
Evolution is a Lie;
Now Watch, another Funny Evol;
| For Your Entertainment, Today; OH the Funny Things you Evols Say; | |
| YEC Debates 3 Atheists, if you have the Time, it's Pretty Great | |
If the TOE Was True, Man would be one of the Oldest Modern Living Creatures, We are the Most Advanced.
We Shouldn't be, The ONLY Living Creature, who are Supposed to Have Speciated, in the Past 10 Million Years.
Sorry, that Makes No Sense. Which is Why I call it Nonsense.
Let me try a different tack from the one noguru tried months ago.
In Genesis, it specifies what type of life forms God brought forth on each day. Do you accept the Genesis account as an accurate and literal description of the order in which life appeared on the earth?
I accept the Biblical account of creation as recorded in scripture.
As for truth, you would be addressing science and the Bible or religion (I am guessing).
I am talking about the word of God, the word of truth, that converts that soul and brings a person salvation.
- Status