Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by User Name View Post

    When you start out by assuming the truth of your conclusion, you're not doing science, so engaging over the evidence is probably a waste of time.
    That's hilarious. You assume on thing, I assume another. Everyone starts out with SOME assumption.

    Leave a comment:


  • User Name
    replied
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    Common ancestry from the created kinds is well supposed.
    Common ancestry from a SINGLE "common ancestor" is not. That is one of the great myths of "evolution".
    When you start out by assuming the truth of your conclusion, you're not doing science, so engaging over the evidence is probably a waste of time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Right Divider
    replied
    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    Common ancestry too is well supported by a wide variety of evidence.
    Common ancestry from the created kinds is well supposed.
    Common ancestry from a SINGLE "common ancestor" is not. That is one of the great myths of "evolution".

    Leave a comment:


  • Alate_One
    replied
    Originally posted by 6days View Post
    Evolution? Do you mean the process by which organisms change over time from mutations, drift, and selection? That is observational, empirical testable science which is consistent with the Biblical creation model.
    Technically we agree on this in a sense, I just don't think the Bible puts forth a "model" of creation other than God created everything. How, is not really specified.

    Common ancestry is a false belief system that perverts science and rejects Scripture.
    No, and No. Common ancestry too is well supported by a wide variety of evidence.
    We can see a long, long history of false claims based on evolutionism which science later proves false.[/QUOTe]Yeah that very same science that says common ancestry is real.

    (Junk DNA,
    Not False.
    useless appendix,
    In dispute either way.
    dimwitted inarticulate Neandertals,
    Not really scientific to begin with. They have a larger brain size than modern humans.
    pseudogenes and retroviruses,
    Still very much real. simple cells,
    eye evolution, Darwin's tree, the peppered moth story, primitive lungs and stubby limbs on extinct coelacanths,
    All still real.

    Piltdown,
    This one is the only actual Hoax on your list. But not many scientists were convinced by it since it did not fit well with the other evidence.

    Gill slits on human embryos,
    Pharyngeal pouches which are not technically gill slits but the same structures do become gills in Fish

    backwards wired retina, Radiometric dating backflips of 200 million years)[/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]
    All still real things.


    Then we have evidence the earth is 6-10,000 years old:
    ....
    ....
    ....

    Complaints about scientific evidence
    ....
    ....

    And nothing else.

    Leave a comment:


  • 6days
    replied
    Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
    Scientific ideas must be testable and consistent with the data we observe. Evolution easily fits that description. The fact you don't like it, doesn't make it not science.
    Evolution? Do you mean the process by which organisms change over time from mutations, drift, and selection? That is observational, empirical testable science which is consistent with the Biblical creation model.
    Common ancestry is a false belief system that perverts science and rejects Scripture. We can see a long, long history of false claims based on evolutionism which science later proves false. (Junk DNA, useless appendix, dimwitted inarticulate Neandertals, pseudogenes and retroviruses, simple cells, eye evolution, Darwin's tree, the peppered moth story, primitive lungs and stubby limbs on extinct coelacanths, Piltdown, Gill slits on human embryos, backwards wired retina, Radiometric dating backflips of 200 million years)

    Leave a comment:


  • Child of God
    replied
    I love God, and Jesus more then ANYTHING in the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Child of God
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly

    I think you need to lay off the false accusations, or risk being banned as a troll.

    Do you remember what the punishment in the Bible was for someone who bore false witness?

    It was that the punishment for the crime the false accuser bore false witness of be applied to the accuser.

    In this case, Trolling results in a permanent ban. 7D has been on here long enough to establish that he is not a troll. Which means you need to provide evidence of your claims, or retract them.

    How about, instead of calling people you disagree with "trolls," you engage the argument they present, or put them on ignore. Next time you make this accusation, I'm going to give you an infraction for being unnecessarily disruptive.
    As for engaging with 7 d 7, I Find him to controversial about small things.

    He wants to argue about what words mean, I want to express that Jesus loves you.

    Leave a comment:


  • User Name
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post

    Does anybody here understand what motivates a person like 7-d-7? Is he just naturally nasty?
    Some people just act like trolls, and I only interact with them as it pleases me for whatever personal reasons. Otherwise, I just ignore them. Proceed at your own discretion.
    Last edited by User Name; November 29th, 2019, 05:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post

    Why, you just don't know much of anything. You're a real dud when it comes to thinking.
    ...
    But, you've over and over demonstrated your disdain for logic, so, of course, nobody really expects you to try to engage in making deductions--not even deductions from your own dicta.
    Does anybody here understand what motivates a person like 7-d-7? Is he just naturally nasty? Does he feel a need to prove himself smarter and better than everybody else?

    I've run into nasty comments here plenty of times, but rarely with the consistency of this gentleman (or lady). It seems pathological.

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by Child of God View Post
    If God could use the word PERFECT to describe the Devil, why did not God use the same word when He said it was Very Good?
    What (if anything) are you trying to say, here?

    Why don't you tell us exactly why God did not use the word, 'perfect', rather than the word, 'very good', since you seem to think you know why?
    Tell us exactly what you would say it is about the word, 'perfect', that (as you imagine) kept God from using it, rather than the word, 'very good', in describing His creation.

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    3. I make no claims about what is perfect or not.
    False. You claim that at least some good is perfect:

    Originally posted by chair View Post
    "very good" is a subset of "good", and "perfect" is a subset of "very good".

    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post

    Why?
    I'm not even sure what "perfect" means in this context.
    Why, you just don't know much of anything. You're a real dud when it comes to thinking.

    Anyway, you're the guy who told us that

    Originally posted by chair View Post
    "very good" is a subset of "good", and "perfect" is a subset of "very good".
    By telling us that perfect is a subset of a subset of good, you've told us that for something to be perfect is for it to be good. So, in any context--according to your own, above-quoted classification scheme--to say that something is perfect would be (at the very least) to say that it is good.

    But, you've over and over demonstrated your disdain for logic, so, of course, nobody really expects you to try to engage in making deductions--not even deductions from your own dicta.


    Leave a comment:


  • 7djengo7
    replied
    Originally posted by chair View Post
    I said that "good" is not "perfect".
    So the very important point that you were trying to make is that the word, 'good', is not the word, 'perfect'? Is that it? Could you please quote where 6days, or anybody else, claimed that the word, 'good', IS the word, 'perfect'? Could you please quote where 6days, or anybody else, claimed that the word, 'perfect', occurs in Genesis 1--2?

    Originally posted by chair View Post

    Cutting through the rest of the garbage in your post, I will answer the actual question.
    Note that you can't even specify to which (if any) question you are here referring by your phrase, "the actual question". That's because you haven't answered, and aren't going to try to answer, any question I asked you.

    Originally posted by chair View Post
    6days said that the Bible says that the creation was "perfect". I pointed out that he was wrong.
    Wait a second: Are you saying that 6days said that the word, 'perfect', occurs in the text of Genesis 1-2? Show us where you imagine he said so; please quote him, and link to the post of his to which you are referring.


    Originally posted by chair View Post
    That is not what the bible said.
    Are you saying, here, that the Bible did not say the word, 'perfect', in the text of Genesis 1-2? Can you quote anyone in this thread as having said that the word, 'perfect', occurs in the text of Genesis 1-2?

    Leave a comment:


  • 6days
    replied
    Originally posted by chair
    If you'd pay attention to the posts in this thread, you would know that:
    I think what you mean is 'if you just believe what I write....'.
    Originally posted by chair
    1. The term "perfect" does not appear in the Hebrew. It meant something different in KJV times than it does today.
    we agree! There are no English words in the Hebrew language, and language changes over time.

    From scripture, we know that God is perfect. He is omnipotent, omniscient, Holy, faithful, wise, omnipresent and more. We know that he is perfect, and that his works are perfect. It is not just the old KJV that uses the word perfect, but many modern translation teams also use the word perfect in describing God. (NIV, NLT, ESV, new KJV, and many others including Young's literal translation

    Leave a comment:


  • chair
    replied
    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

    Could you acknowledge that God is perfect and that everything that God does is perfect?
    Why?
    I'm not even sure what "perfect" means in this context.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X