Lon
Well-known member
:chuckle: Funny you have to mention it. It drips with disdain and irony.
If God created...
- Thread starter User Name
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
You are wrong that I 'brag' about it. Interesting who is offended by it as well as a 'need' to talk about it. I'm honored. There is no such thing as bad press. John 15:18
You just don't pay attention, nor do you see his mistakes. You are very much into cheap and veneer assessments. You should learn to judge rightly and be quiet until you know the difference. You are often on the wrong side and against God very God in your discussions because of it...like here in this thread as well. Champion God and quit trying to make another 'Meshak' show simply because of something trivial you don't like about me. This thread isn't about me.
There is no if in creation.
The Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (NASB)
The Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (NASB)
I was wondering the same of you.
Christians are by and large decent loving people because people are by and large decent and loving. Christianity has no monopoly, and actually, many questions to answer on that topic.
As Stephen Weinberg said, With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.
Is it an ethical one?
There are many on the planet who act on their ideals who you would think despicable. Ideology is not enough, and is almost never helpful in a democracy.
Indeed. I tend to go on the title of the thread more than the OP. It's a brilliantly open-ended title.
Stuart
The human population at a reasonable doubling rate is about right for a start from eight people 3,500 years ago = appearance of the accuracy of the Biblical account.
The question in OP assumes the truth of the Darwinist agenda. A rational discussion requires respect for both sides of the argument.
You can present evidence for your ideas, but the conversation cannot proceed if you're just going to demand that your assumptions be treated as fact.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Is Thomas a Christian, do you know?
Come on, you're joking.
You say some of the silliest things sometimes Meshak. How can you make a determination of someone's qualification in a field that you admit you "don't know anything about?" This is all very confusing!
Is there any positive way to understand what you mean by this statement? It only, and I underline only looks like boasting, so I'm asking, is there a positive way to see this? Am I missing something, or are you just boasting?
Hi Meshak. :wave:
Lon
Well-known member
Progeria: Aging prematurely :think:
No, not really. Most of us are in communities that have not a lot to do with you.
I don't care what he says. It isn't true. Religion in the hands of bad people is no different than no religion in their hands. They are going to do what they are going to do. It is people in 'religion's' hand that makes a change and difference. However you want to see your world is how you will see it. Try to wear clear glasses and leave the poor inaccurate quotes at home.
Would depend on quite a bit of conversation. At face value, that gun looks loaded, however. Are we really creating a world where bringing guns is par and felt necessary? TOL isn't that rough of a place.
Well, that's why you are there and I'm here. It would appear a wall between what we believe is right and proper.
:think:
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
Incorrect.
Nope. Look and see 'what' I mentioned about my education. Was I saying "Look at me! I'm Brilliant!" :nono: I simply said 'according to my education, you are over reaching." etc. IOW, I'm 'qualifying' my observations and supporting them. Learn to read. It is clear you despise me, but I really don't care about that. I simply ignore you most of the time because of it. You really need to learn to love your enemies and do good to them, not this mess you've offered.
I'm pretty sure he is an atheist. You make a LOT of embarrassing mistakes.
All the time, you know very little.
He claims to be a professor. His English is atrocious for one thing.... :think:
Quite a boast. Why is this where your mind went? James tells us to sit at the poor-man's table, there you are taking a seat next to the Lord :Z
Incorrect. I don't honor 'you' much, is what you mean. I know you hate me, but this is a really poor way to show it on TOL. You attack me. I have you on ignore to avoid all your nonsense. You not only aren't using your brain, you aren't nice either. I have no reason to talk to you. You just aren't a nice person, don't know who Christians are on TOL etc. You are an embarrassment.
Show me. Quote me anywhere saying such. Here? :nono: I said you weren't intelligent OR nice.
It IS trolling. It has NOTHING to do with this thread. None of it. You SHOULD be reported for it.
Yes, that would be one of the questions I think christianity should answer.
Steven Weinberg: With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.
Yes, it's only with religion that otherwise good people shoot abortion clinic doctors or blow up themselves and other people indiscriminately in a busy market or kneecap different kinds of christians or mutilate the genitals of their children of both genders or subject people to torture on behalf of a pope.
These are not all 'evil' people, they are mostly vulnerable, loving, perhaps family people with all the usual human weaknesses. And yet here they are inspired by their devotion to a religious ideology to kill and maim in its name. That is unique, but it also applies in parallel to Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, where ordinary people were convinced to commit atrocities in the name of an ideology.
Are there some things you just couldn't bring yourself to discuss in a civil manner?
Wow, maybe I didn't realise just how right Steven Weinberg is.
That would be to suppose, that is, that you are in his good people category, and I have no particular reason to doubt that, whatever the specific meaning of good is in his mind.
Stuart
My apology:
I mixed up Thomas with themotheos.
So I will delete my posts concerning Thomas.
I have been reading themotheos thread about non-believers' never-ending torture which I whole heartedly agree.
And I came to defense when his integrity was insulted.
I don't much about Thomas.
I falsely testify about him.
sincerely.
I mixed up Thomas with themotheos.
So I will delete my posts concerning Thomas.
I have been reading themotheos thread about non-believers' never-ending torture which I whole heartedly agree.
And I came to defense when his integrity was insulted.
I don't much about Thomas.
I falsely testify about him.
sincerely.
6days
New member
Stuu said:
Stuu... most of your reply /post 469 is your theology, beliefs and trying to parse words. Surely you know what 'nothing' means. (no energy, no vacuum, no fluctuations, no material, no space, no intelligence, etc.). Nothing can not create everything, although you may believe it.
Stuu said:
However, there is the Law of Biogenesis.
There have been many psuedoscintific, and wild speculations that life came from sea floor vents, ancient astronomer, sheets of mica, seeded on earth by aliens, volcanic clouds, clay, warm little pond etc.Stuu said:
Atheists seem incapable of consideing the most logical, and the most scientific explanation.... an eternally existing intelligence.
Stuu said:
No true Scotsman fallacy
Yes, I am describing evolutionism; Call it magic if you like. Common ancestry is the belief a microbe can become a microbiologist.... just add time and mutations. (and a magicians hat)Stuu said:
Haha... you seemed to think Crow's article was just fine when you misrepresented it. His findings are still correct, although the problem of genetic load is now known to be worse than what could be known in '97.Stuu said:
Crow in '97 acknowledged the problem of increasing genetic load. Geneticists still are discussing the problem, and trying to understand how humanity has survived this high rate. (Crow called it the "population bomb". Recent article, 2016 as example, still discuss the problem saying things such as...
* "average newborn contains de novo mutations." (in addition to the thousands of deleterious mutations they inherit).
* "the mutation rate per generation increases by a factor of 2 between males of age 20 and 40 years "
* "there is little reason to think that the situation can be improved much by a reduction in environmental mutagens,.."
* "no amount of human intervention at the molecular level is likely to improve the situation"
* "there is no way to avoid the accumulation of somatic mutations with undesirable effects in an aging human."
* "it remains difficult to escape the conclusion that numerous physical and psychological attributes are likely to slowly deteriorate in technologically advanced societies"
ETC. ETC. http://www.genetics.org/content/202/3/869
There is more in that article and in many other articles supporting the biblical creation model. We have a good genome that is slowly being corrupted.
Stuu said:
We can't compare mutation results in bacteria to humans, as you seemed to do.
Stuu said:
I think I hear Stripe cheering you on that. Yes, the word has a lot of elasticity, often depending on evolutionary beliefs, and not science.
Calling Neanderthals a different name does not make them a different species, any more than it would referring to Pygmies or Eskimos.Stuu said:
Less than 5000 years they say... That's ok.Stuu said:
Stuu said:
I don't imagine you recognize the psuedoscience with your article? 450cc is the size of a chimp brain. There is no reason to put the Australopithecines in human lineage other than the common ancestry belief system. There is a long history of trying to make 'Lucy' and other apes more human like...and trying to make humans like Neandertals into apes. The Australopiticenes were apes same brain volume, seemingly a grass and flower diet, they were tree dwellers, ape shoulder bones, ape ear bones, ape jaw, knuckle walker wrists etc.
The common ancestry belief system arranges fossils in patterns to fit their beliefs. They have shuffled dates up and down by as much as 100 million years. (will cite if you wish).
Well, that is the claim. A universe from nothing. It is you inserting the word create, which begs the question of how it happened. But the universe did indeed arise from nothing. Let me know if you want the detailed explanation, but I'm sure if you really did want to know you would have looked it up by now.
And some scientific speculations. And you too have to engage with the basics, like what could be a formative energy gradient system, and that applies whether or not you believe in magical creation. You can't just plead ignorance then attack plausible science on the question. There has to be a starting point for making a system that allows energy to be converted.
So, science says put up or shut up: what is the speculated mechanism for a creator making an energy conversion system to get cells working? Or even for turning dirt into humans? Or ribs into humans? How, actually do donkeys talk? What about snakes communicating with humans? Is there a magical change to the reptilian larynx to enable that?
And you call speculation about abiogenesis 'pseudoscientific', when you are seriously proposing magic as an alternative 'explanation'. You are a supreme hypocrite.
That's because atheists are generally incapable of accepting fantasy conspiracy theories in place of proper explanations. There is no explanation in goddidit.
Stuu: creationists never come up with the level of explanation they demand from real scientists.
How is that the No True Scotsman fallacy??
Or invented it.
Yawn. Still no news on how entropy can possibly have anything to do with it?
Why not? How exactly do the different methods of genetic exchange mean a comparison can't be made?
But you are fine with the data for Erectus, Habilis and archaic Sapiens, right? The slow change in skull size is established. And if course it doesn't actually matter whether australopithecines are in the direct human lineage. That was the approximate skull size of the time whether you are a direct ancestor or a branch going off to one side.
So you would like to change the subject to common descent? Sure.
The fact of common ancestry is proved beyond any creationist's objection by endogenous retroviruses alone. You don't have to have any fossils at all to demonstrate common ancestry as a fact.
The age of the Earth has been 'shuffled' from a few million years in the 19th Century to 4.5 billion years since 1956. Science has a correction mechanism based in empirical data.
Tell us about the correction system that fixes the mistakes in Judeo-christian fantasy conspiracy theories. Tell us why AiG published an article telling creationists not to use entropy as a creationist argument. Love to hear from you on the furious shuffling that goes on in creationism.
Stuart
Lon
Well-known member
:nono:
:nono: Nothing but confirmation bias. History proves out exactly opposite.
I'm not Catholic, nor do a judge the entire by a fraction of its populace. Well-meaning, they allowed priests with vows of celibacy. It backfired and became an embarrassment for them. There is a difference between you and I, with a wall between. I don't tend to shoot first. You have a religious chip on your shoulder. You mention Nazis. Hitler had an unhealthy hatred of Jews. Don't be like him.
Naw. Not when it is this kind of irrationality. Not unless you really want a healthier view to espouse. There really is something tragically different between our world views of people and religion. My glass is more than half-full. I'm positive there is glass on top of that wall and I didn't put it there.
And there's the glass. On this side of the wall, he's completely wrong and a poor man because of it. It is YOUR angst, not mine. Then again, a lot of people think atheists are baby-eaters too. SOME of that is founded when someone wants to use fetus parts to make their OWN lives better. It is cannibalism. There is no white-washing such. That said, I personally know a few atheists that are VERY much against the use of aborted people for self-interested research. IOW, I'm not the guy calling anybody a baby eater so I'm not building this wall or putting glass on the top but to be sure, there will be no profitable dialogue between you and I because there is glass on top of the wall. Your opinions are built to separate, not bridge anything. Generally, you are seen as a 'reactionary.' Something stuck in your craw and blinded you toward confirmation biases.
It doesn't matter as much if we can't get past the wall because it would and does, separate good from good as well.
Lon
Well-known member
Assumptions are like that and we are back to square one. What was the point? :think:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Notes on Creation Research radio this week:
Drs. Austin and Schnelling of Australia on the 2001 tsunami hydrology dynamics and the global cataclysm. The tsunami was from an area the size of California shifting 6 ft. There are surface geologic records of shifts as much as 10K and the most recent find and/or example is from S. Africa. The Ayers rock area of Australia is a slurry deposit of several thousand feet from at least 70 miles away if not more. It's exposed granitic lines runs vertically and subsurface, it is bent and continues several miles horizontally, dubbed a "J" shape. With such slurry movement found all over the world, and uplifts and shifts of similar magnitude, such a cataclysm is shown to be a global event.
It's really not hard to imagine such movements when looking at coastlines and abrupt formations such as 4 corners. What you are seeing is what was left after massive slurries blasted through. The slurry movements often show the expected tapering of a one-time global event: the final markings or 'removals' are much reduced compared to the initial.
Mitochondrial Eve
One workup of the necessary chain of DNA for today's population is as short as 6000 years. This is not by anyone in the creation science community, and comes with many disclaimers, but it is a published study. It is generally believed in these sciences that one female is, as the Biblical line in Gen 3 says, the mother of all living.
Drs. Austin and Schnelling of Australia on the 2001 tsunami hydrology dynamics and the global cataclysm. The tsunami was from an area the size of California shifting 6 ft. There are surface geologic records of shifts as much as 10K and the most recent find and/or example is from S. Africa. The Ayers rock area of Australia is a slurry deposit of several thousand feet from at least 70 miles away if not more. It's exposed granitic lines runs vertically and subsurface, it is bent and continues several miles horizontally, dubbed a "J" shape. With such slurry movement found all over the world, and uplifts and shifts of similar magnitude, such a cataclysm is shown to be a global event.
It's really not hard to imagine such movements when looking at coastlines and abrupt formations such as 4 corners. What you are seeing is what was left after massive slurries blasted through. The slurry movements often show the expected tapering of a one-time global event: the final markings or 'removals' are much reduced compared to the initial.
Mitochondrial Eve
One workup of the necessary chain of DNA for today's population is as short as 6000 years. This is not by anyone in the creation science community, and comes with many disclaimers, but it is a published study. It is generally believed in these sciences that one female is, as the Biblical line in Gen 3 says, the mother of all living.
Lon
Well-known member
Because you only think of those who failed. Percentage-wise, you are WAY behind the eight-ball. Do you realize that such is ONLY held by atheists with angst? :think: You are hanging with the wrong crowd. At the VERY least, think for yourself instead of being indoctrinated by dupes. I watched Bill Maher defend Christians last week, by example.
I would defend christians too, but I would also do what Bill Maher does and expose christianity for the massive con that it has been. Just as muslims have been the main victims of islamism, so christians have been the main victims of christianity.
In my country christianity is dying at a high rate, and I think that is because people see it as a failed set of dogmas. The things they see as 'good' in christianity aren't unique to christianity, and the bad has been either really appalling or involved the assertion of claims of magic that are just ridiculous. Christianity is dying in the US as well, but much more slowly.
Perhaps we could agree on the Golden Rule, or a better form of it, as a success, but that existed much earlier than the writings of ancient Palestine. Which religion will spring up in the place of christianity, do you think? Maybe yet another totalitarian one that claims to have the unique path to Salvation™.
Stuart