Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#428 Mar 5, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>No you did not.
God created man and animal, at the same time, according to the bible, True??
Cool, why is it that human fossilized remains are never found with dinosaur fossilized remains"
Given that carbon dating can be flawed, why is it that no human remains date back as far as dinosaurs???
Perhaps your system of dating is extremely flawed?

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#429 Mar 5, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps your system of dating is extremely flawed?
Nope, not a chance.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#430 Mar 5, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not a chance.
You have great faith in men.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#431 Mar 5, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
You have great faith in men.
Faith is not required. Science is based on facts.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#432 Mar 5, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith is not required. Science is based on facts.
Faith is mandatory to believe in evolution.

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#433 Mar 5, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Faith is mandatory to believe in evolution.
Yes: faith in science!

Faith in Christ and the existence of God can also accept evolution, if my explanation on this page is correct, as I think it is: and possible the only way in which a Christian acceptance of evolution can be explained, without declaring the story of creation questionable.
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/evoluti...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#434 Mar 5, 2013
Cliff09 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes: faith in science!
Faith in Christ and the existence of God can also accept evolution, if my explanation on this page is correct, as I think it is: and possible the only way in which a Christian acceptance of evolution can be explained, without declaring the story of creation questionable.
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/evoluti...
Nah.

Exodus 20:11 (ESV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.

Since: Aug 08

Somewhere in Ireland

#435 Mar 5, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah.
Exodus 20:11 (ESV)
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day.
Why would a being that is supposed to be omnipotent need to rest and why would it take an omnipotent being six days to create everything? Maybe you believe your god's powers are limited, much like your brain power!

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#436 Mar 5, 2013
par five wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a being that is supposed to be omnipotent need to rest and why would it take an omnipotent being six days to create everything? Maybe you believe your god's powers are limited, much like your brain power!
If your "brain power" is so great why don't you know the definition of "rest"? Hmmm
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#437 Mar 5, 2013
Exactly. An all powerful being would be much quicker.
par five wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would a being that is supposed to be omnipotent need to rest and why would it take an omnipotent being six days to create everything? Maybe you believe your god's powers are limited, much like your brain power!

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#438 Mar 5, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps your system of dating is extremely flawed?
Read the post son, answer the questions.

God created man and animal, at the same time, according to the bible, True??
Cool, why is it that human fossilized remains are never found with dinosaur fossilized remains"
Given that carbon dating can be flawed, why is it that no human remains date back as far as dinosaurs???

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#439 Mar 5, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Read the post son, answer the questions.
God created man and animal, at the same time, according to the bible, True??
Cool, why is it that human fossilized remains are never found with dinosaur fossilized remains"
Given that carbon dating can be flawed, why is it that no human remains date back as far as dinosaurs???
Already answered. You have no proof.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#441 Mar 5, 2013
FundiMENTALslayer wrote:
<quoted text>Oh they do.. its YOU that has no 'brain power'. Actually you have no power whatsoever. Except to heat up a cold room with all your hot air.
You are delivered unto Satan in Jesus' Name.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#443 Mar 5, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Already answered. You have no proof.
No proof??? Damn son, don't you think that at some point in time, it would be reported that human fossilized remains where found with those of dinosaurs?

If carbon dating where to prove that man and dinosaurs coexisted, you don't think that it would be reported?

Here is your problem, Bill you can not answer the questions, because it would be a direct conflict with your bible.

Yet science has shown you that all through your life. Its probably better if you keep your head stuck in the sand.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#444 Mar 5, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
If your "brain power" is so great why don't you know the definition of "rest"? Hmmm
We talked about that, god kicked back and slammed a few cosmic beers.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#445 Mar 5, 2013
FundiMENTALslayer wrote:
<quoted text>Good! You're screwed! Want some blood?
The Blood of Jesus against you Satan in Jesus' Name.

Revelation 12:11 (ESV)
11 And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony,

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#446 Mar 5, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>No proof??? Damn son, don't you think that at some point in time, it would be reported that human fossilized remains where found with those of dinosaurs?
If carbon dating where to prove that man and dinosaurs coexisted, you don't think that it would be reported?
Here is your problem, Bill you can not answer the questions, because it would be a direct conflict with your bible.
Yet science has shown you that all through your life. Its probably better if you keep your head stuck in the sand.
Your problem is that you have great faith in corrupt, lying humans. You have ZERO proof of the evolution dating system.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#449 Mar 5, 2013
FundiMENTALslayer wrote:
<quoted text>Oh here goes the "blood on you" garbage again.. Like anyone cares. Did you know that most people are reviled by that connotation and you seem to address everyone with it?
Sorry but you aint doin any 'spreadin any good news'.........
Unless of course, you're a paperboy for the Lunatic Times!
There is no good news for you. Only WOE in your future.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#451 Mar 5, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. No. It's not science that is controlled, as science is not a personality. It's the science community that is subject to political correctness. I've given some examples. They're not going to bend for Watson as he is merely one powerless individual. Bending for Watson would be far more harmful for the science community.{/QUOTE]
The scientific community is not going to bend to religious dogma or claims of divine revelation either.
[QUOTE who="Job"]2. I of course disagree. I've asked you some direct questions that have not yet been answered, and we don't even need to invoke the name of Watson at all if that's truly an issue. Here they are again:
RNDr. Lucie Benešová, Ph.D., Director for Research and Services at Genomac, said: "For many years we have been pointing out that privately-owned and publicly-owned genetics laboratories should uphold elementary principles of ethics, both in the areas of performing, promoting and publicizing genetic testing, and in the area of interpreting test results. We presented our first draft of an ethical codex for genetic testing to the professional world in 2005."
Why would ethics play a part in science if science is void of morality? Why should there be limits on genetic testing?
Science is not void of morality. Religion has no monopoly on morality. Ethics affect the way scientists conduct their research. It is not ethical to conduct an experiment that will harm the subjects. Ethics does not affect the interpretation of evidence gathered. Nothing in the Watson affair suggests that. Watson provided no evidence.
Job wrote:
And:
There is no place for the "moralistic fallacy" that reality must conform to our social, political, or ethical desires."
That is correct. If the scientific evidence shows that we are descended from lower forms it is accepted regardless of whether or not it offends the human ego, society, politics, or literal interpretation of holy books.
Job wrote:
Do you agree with this comment?
3. If you ever see an exorcism you may change your mind rather quickly.
No! I have never seen an exorcism but I have seen people go into terrible seizures and convulsive states. I am unaware of any scientific evidence that any of the phenomena observed at “so-called” exorcisms are attributable to anything supernatural.
Job wrote:
4. What do you mean by medieval tyrant? That's not my image of God by the way.
You believe that your “God” demands worship, is jealous of rivals, rewards “sucking up”, meats out punishment for anything that displeases or offends “Him” and is prone to fits of anger. I think that’s a pretty good description of just about any medieval tyrant you would care to name.
Job wrote:
5. We're not talking about the force of nature.
You and I are talking about two different things. I’m talking about the possibility of an indescribable force or consciousness or intelligence that is responsible for the laws that govern nature and the universe, not a personal god with anthropomorphic (human) characteristics. You have to remember that I don’t accept your concept of “God”.
Job wrote:
6. I'm sorry, you lost me.
You seem to suggesting that the people that wrote editorials in that journal need to unnamed for fear of physical retribution by the science community.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#452 Mar 5, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Ptolemy of Alexandria is the one who restated the Geocentric theory. The Geocentric theory is 'not' a revelation.
Do you recall me asking the question (that you didn't answer), what did the rest of the world believe as far as the earth's relationship to the Sun? You keep wanting to pin geocentricity on Christianity when it was embraced pretty much worldwide. Like China for example.
Do you recall that I told you that the entire Western World was controlled by the Church and the Church’s official position was that the Earth was the center of the universe? It was only because men like Copernicus and Galileo dared to accept scientific evidence rather than religious dogma that they arrived at the correct conclusion.

They did not allow the religion of that time to interfere with their scientific endeavors. Galileo said the same thing then that Dawkins is saying now.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
BIBLE CONTRADICTION: Mark 4:11-12, 2 Peter 3:9 14 min Barnsweb 72
Who stole the keys to Heaven? 50 min purplelady1040 548
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 1 hr Cookie_Parker 13,751
Dollarsbill Is Still Quick To Condemn 3 hr ChristineM 1,181
dollarsbill vs an athiest 4 hr Mr Ironhart 324
Are World Events Pointing to End Times 5 hr The truth works 1,003
The Social Harm of Religion 6 hr The truth works 60
Evolution versus Creation, which one is right? 8 hr Truth 198
A Message from Nettie (Feb '14) 9 hr Poof1 1,502
•••

Christian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••