Whatever you are talking about you consider it a laughing matter.
Yeah, just go ahead and continue to be stupid. No one will notice.
:rotfl:
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
noguru
Well-known member
Yes, I find it is better to laugh at stupidity when people refuse to admit it. Since you guys think it is alright to be stupid. I think it is alright to laugh at you. If you have a problem with that, either stop being stupid or get over it.
You people are like the science version of "Americas Dumbest Criminals" - "America's Dumbest Scientist Wannabes". You can't even get away with your deceit successfully.
It's not deceit. Laughing doesn't excuse you of your error.Yes, I find it is better to laugh at stupidity when people refuse to admit it. Since you guys think it is alright to be stupid. I think it is alright to laugh at you. If you have a problem with that, either stop being stupid or get over it.
You people are like the science version of "Americas Dumbest Criminals" - "America's Dumbest Scientist Wannabes". You can't even get away with your deceit successfully.
noguru
Well-known member
:think:
You have the audacity to claim I have made an error? Yet you totally ignore all your glaring errors. Who do you think you are fooling?
And yes it is deceit, regardless of the fact that you might just be a patsy for the overall deceit orchestrated by your YEC overlords.
I can laugh at you stupidity all I want. Since you are allowed to be as stupid as you want.
I really don't know what you are talking about.
This thread, those on it, was asking for evidence for creationism, whether YEC or otherwise. And I have risen to the occasion with the opportunity afforded me by others who have done the work I have not. As for the Bible there is much we can learn. But not if a person says science first and then the Bible... because how would we know if his or her science was/were/is true?
noguru
Well-known member
You have not risen to anything. In your feeble little mind you might think what you offered is worth the time to read it. But I assure your words are worthless. You have no credibility in my eyes. You cannot even address clear direct questions in a clear direct manner. I think you are a cowardly deceitful fraud just like 6days. You both think that "hiding behind Jesus for all the wrong reasons" is somehow acceptable. I do not think it is acceptable.
I have done what was asked of me, and you fail me for it. Why would you think there would be hiding behind Jesus for any reason? I'm not ashamed of my Christianity. I'm certainly not hiding about it.
noguru
Well-known member
Again, you divert attention from my real point. Yours is the strategy of sleazy salesmen. You hide your blatant ignorance of science behind a label of "Christianity". And you are proud of that. You should be ashamed of using God's name to shelter your ignorance. I really don't expect you to understand this. This is what you have been taught is "proper Christianity" and you said yourself that "I will not relent". At this point going over this with you is a waste of even more time. But you will reap exactly what you have sowed.
No, I am forced to where I am at by evolutionists that I don't even know. I am the one without a degree and with my faith, belief in God and Jesus, and belief in the Bible as historically and scientifically accurate I am willing to engage you about your interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. It is a learning process. And as a Christian that is all it is for me. I have provided those on this site with links to sources of evidence as was requested of me. If I am failed for that then it is a collective fail that may or may not have been anticipated... at least in the minds of those making the requests.
When people produce evidence, whether Biblical or scientific, for or against creation or evolution, that evidence should become a part of their thinking... either for or against. And with critical thinking we can ask the right questions to come to the right solution/conclusion. This is an individual endeavor, or collective. But here it has been shoot or discredit the messenger who pointed to evidence outside of himself (me). If you would like to talk about personal beliefs we can do that. But again, the person with the masters degree did not have a doctorate and so we are left with evolution being called scientific.
noguru
Well-known member
I have asked you the pertinent questions regarding evidence (the priorities regarding all evidence), and you failed to answer directly and clearly. That is a problem for any future discussion with you. I have seen that you will not answer the pertinent questions because of your emotional defense mechanism as a result of your views of salvation.
But in reality none of this is really science. Because science comes to conclusions independent of concern for salvation or any interpretation of Genesis. But if you really want to discuss this I would want to be assured that you will actually consider what I contribute, rather than just ignoring it like you have in the past.
wallstreeterww
New member
Is there any room here for a former evolutionist of 41 years turned old earth creationist/intelligent design advocate
If you are not saved then you are not really a Christian. If you are saved I see no reason for you to disagree with the Bible. Then the question becomes if a person needs to accept all of the Bible to be saved. But you already say you are a Christian.
As for interpretation of the Genesis account that falls within the realm of talking about creation (origins) and not evolution (scientific theory about living organisms changing over time, even to the point where new species (or more accurate to the Bible "kinds" which are not species) are created). If you are a Theistic evolutionist, why not say so and give your reasons why? If you are an Old Earth Creationist, why not say why? If you are a Young Earth creationist, the same (why would anyone (even, in science) expect any different)? If you have a different interpretation of Genesis, what is it?
As for evidence, there is Biblical evidence and scientific evidence. Would you be about textual criticism or Biblical (or even Systematic) Theology? As for science not all evidence is used by individuals for the same purpose. What does the real evidence say? But this is a different kind of evidence (not the evidence of scripture but the evidence of science, for or against creation (and vs. evolution too?)). And finally, there is the fact that presuppositional apologetics, though different from evidential apologetics (what is evidentialism?), still can involve presenting evidence... though it presupposes God and the Bible (as I do).
If the question is "where does the evidence lead?", the answer should be that all evidence correctly interpreted only enhances our understanding of science, God, and the natural world in which we live.
Certainly. Often intelligent design is used to buffer the old earth view. But I am willing also to discuss the ramifications of the old earth view upon the details of scripture... as I feel they inappropriately overshadow God's word.Is there any room here for a former evolutionist of 41 years turned old earth creationist/intelligent design advocate
tell. us. what. you. found. most. convincing.
Once I realized you just believed his unscriptural claims on faith, I understood.
Uncritical belief. I got it.
YE creationism asserts "life ex nihlo", and insists that living things reproduce according to kind. Neither of these are scriptural. In fact, God specifically rules out the former belief.
Barbarian observes:
He doesn't have one in any science, either. It's in "History of Geology", whatever that is. And he has no undergraduate credential in science, either. He has a degree in math and a Master's in theology.
History.
Unfortunately, he has no credentials at all in geology. Not even as an undergraduate.
Barbarian observes:
In the sense that studying the history of space exploration relates to piloting spacecraft.
Directly observed. Can't get much more sensible than that.
If he had even an undergraduate degree in geology, it would have probably been better for him.
Meantime, if you study up a little, read his stuff again, and tell us what you think is most convincing. Then we'll talk.
I don't need to be convinced of the truth of the Bible, I already am.
What do you mean?
What are you talking about now?
What about the verse that says "after their kind"? And what about God speaking the world into existence?
Geology is a science. You are just pointing out that his History of Geology degree is probably not a science degree. But it is a degree that pertains to science? What different than that would you say it pertains to? I still don't know if it is not a science degree. I know it pertains to science.
Of Geology which is science to be specific.
But he has a math degree. And he has a Masters in Theology!
In a whale beaching or a rhino taking a swim?
There is nothing wrong with the degrees he has. None of his degrees would discredit him. They only speak to his unique insight.
I don't get your "most convincing" ask/request. I told you I accept all of it. What do you not agree with? I have already in this post shown you your errors about what you think the Bible says.
6days
New member
Amazing Love
Amazing Love
Origins science....or historical science, generally interprets evidence in a way that complies with a persons biased world view. As Christians, we start with the Word of God....and the world around us makes sense. The evidence fits.
Many scientists(certainly not all) feel it is a 'sin' to allow for a supernatural creation. So... its not really about science. Its about the persons worldview. *Its about coming up with explanations to rescue your 'theory'. What they have is psuedoscience.
IE... They believe life comes from non life
...They believe our fine tuned universe created itself from nothing and implemented laws which govern our world
...They believe Trex evolved into a chicken (dino into some bird)
...They believe comets pop into orbit every once in awhile.
....They believe there is a dynamo inside the earth.
....They believe its ok to exegarate human charactetistics on ape fossils and imply apeman status to human fossils (humanoid).
...They believe its ok to arrange fossils in a pattetn that fits their beliefs, and then call it science.
...They believe in censureship of people with opposing beliefs.
...They believe poor design is evidence against a designer, and good design is evidence of mutations and natural selection.
...They believe that codes,code readers and molecular 'motors' self assembled themselves.
...They believe multiple other universes may exist where anything is possible. Perhaps...perhaps there is even a created universe where the Creator humbled Himself on a cross to save people from a lost eternity. Yes...they believe that there may be such a universe....
We know there is such a universe...this one and its the only universe. *Imagine....the Creator loves me!!! He wants me. He desires what is best for me. And.... the maker of the stars is Jesus who went to Calvary for ME!*
Amazing love... How can it be? That thou my God would die for me?*
Amazing Love
Untellectual said:
Origins science....or historical science, generally interprets evidence in a way that complies with a persons biased world view. As Christians, we start with the Word of God....and the world around us makes sense. The evidence fits.
Many scientists(certainly not all) feel it is a 'sin' to allow for a supernatural creation. So... its not really about science. Its about the persons worldview. *Its about coming up with explanations to rescue your 'theory'. What they have is psuedoscience.
IE... They believe life comes from non life
...They believe our fine tuned universe created itself from nothing and implemented laws which govern our world
...They believe Trex evolved into a chicken (dino into some bird)
...They believe comets pop into orbit every once in awhile.
....They believe there is a dynamo inside the earth.
....They believe its ok to exegarate human charactetistics on ape fossils and imply apeman status to human fossils (humanoid).
...They believe its ok to arrange fossils in a pattetn that fits their beliefs, and then call it science.
...They believe in censureship of people with opposing beliefs.
...They believe poor design is evidence against a designer, and good design is evidence of mutations and natural selection.
...They believe that codes,code readers and molecular 'motors' self assembled themselves.
...They believe multiple other universes may exist where anything is possible. Perhaps...perhaps there is even a created universe where the Creator humbled Himself on a cross to save people from a lost eternity. Yes...they believe that there may be such a universe....
We know there is such a universe...this one and its the only universe. *Imagine....the Creator loves me!!! He wants me. He desires what is best for me. And.... the maker of the stars is Jesus who went to Calvary for ME!*
Amazing love... How can it be? That thou my God would die for me?*
Here is something different but related to my previous posts also in some way. You (anyone here) may be interested.
Creation Conversion: The Turning Point
Creation Conversion: The Turning Point
alwight
New member
You seem to be someone who simply credulously believes in the literal inerrancy of a particular ancient scripture, to the total exclusion of any other possibilities, even when strongly supported by facts and evidence.
Mortenson simply seems to say things that you want to hear, or at least in the way you want to hear things said, not that you seem to have much, if any, understanding of the issues, nor want to.
There was nothing in the link that you cited nor indeed in that video, that I noticed anyway, that wasn't simply an assertion based on the Bible being presumed to be indisputable "evidence", and also assumed to be all the "evidence" was thought to be necessary.
If the Bible said so then it was simply presumed to be final, which for me seems pretty scary how some people can just surrender their mind in that way.
No further enquiry is even given consideration apparently, no facts, no evidence, just blind faith in the total inerrancy of an ancient scripture. Rather like the Borg in Star Trek (TNG) were scary, mindless and "assimilated".
I suspect that you would find it very difficult indeed to even consider thinking outside of your Biblical box, that just maybe sometimes "it ain't necessarily so". :think:
Do you think in his studies of the history of geology he was only studying the Bible?
I do not. I do not think so.
alwight
New member
Perhaps then I need to talk to the organ grinder, not his monkey? :think:
- Status