Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist...

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#453 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???
EVolution
What answer do I have on the fact that Evolution proofs that God could not have created the world in seven days, as we reed in the book of Genesis - O.T.
As we read, when God created men he used clay, while he could have created them out of thin air.
So it is possible, and perhaps the only explanation, that when God created the earth he did not create it out of thin air, but from a existing piece of rock from a by-gone age. A piece of rock on which people and animals did live, but the which had been desolate, dried out and without and uninhabitable for millions of years. He then created the earth on this piece of rock, with man and animals. And that then explains why we find skeletons which are millions of years old in the dirt of the earth.

But, Christians don't need proof, for they live by faith in the laws and the promise of Jesus. They know that all those doubt-rousers are placed before them to try their faith, and they must find no persuasion toward doubting the truth of the Gospel, even if one or more books of the O.T. tell an inaccurate story.


http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/evoluti...

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#454 Mar 5, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Already answered. You have no proof.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Reasonable does not apply to you.

You have a talking snake.

“theholychristian church.com”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#455 Mar 5, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is that you have great faith in corrupt, lying humans. You have ZERO proof of the evolution dating system.
The question is: how much proof have you got and what explanation, for the existance of God and his creation of the world in 7 days?

Who has more proof?

As I said: christians ought not to take on science, because they are bound to loose the battle!

http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/evoluti...

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#456 Mar 5, 2013
Cliff09 wrote:
<quoted text>
EVolution
What answer do I have on the fact that Evolution proofs that God could not have created the world in seven days, as we reed in the book of Genesis - O.T.
As we read, when God created men he used clay, while he could have created them out of thin air.
So it is possible, and perhaps the only explanation, that when God created the earth he did not create it out of thin air, but from a existing piece of rock from a by-gone age. A piece of rock on which people and animals did live, but the which had been desolate, dried out and without and uninhabitable for millions of years. He then created the earth on this piece of rock, with man and animals. And that then explains why we find skeletons which are millions of years old in the dirt of the earth.
But, Christians don't need proof, for they live by faith in the laws and the promise of Jesus. They know that all those doubt-rousers are placed before them to try their faith, and they must find no persuasion toward doubting the truth of the Gospel, even if one or more books of the O.T. tell an inaccurate story.
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/evoluti...
Asked and answered. I repeat:

1) Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Any elementary Astronomy textbook will demonstrate the Earth did not exist 'in the beginning'.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Once again; no Earth, no face of the deep, no face of the waters.

There is no firmament.

4) It is true. You are quite satisfied knowing nothing about anything.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#457 Mar 5, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I wish you'd give as much attention to my questions as you do statements where I even admitted I was in error. That, and I'm not sure what was the reason was for posting this definition.
2. But you and Hawking know that the Bible is a myth! Right?
Not only me and Hawking may very religious people understand that also.

“I take the Bible too seriously to read it literally.”- Karl Barth, Swiss Reformed theologian
Job wrote:
3. I have no doubt that they work hard. In reality, the logical approach for evolutionists would be to embrace creation scientists wholeheartedly. They should welcome the challenges made by creationists with open arms, rather than attempting to quiet them. We might even say, evolutionists 'need' creation scientists. If there's nothing to fear from creation scientists, then place it all on the table for the public to see, and let 'them' make their choice.
Scientists do welcome criticism but not from every fanatic with some wild idea based on some holy book or extraterrestrial theory. They welcome criticism based on scientific evidence and rational thought.

“Advocates of the ideas collectively known as “creationism” and, recently,“intelligent design creationism” hold a wide variety of views.… No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints.”– U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Job wrote:
I understand where you're coming from, but just because some scientists place their faith in an ancient manuscript doesn't render it false. It's illogical to dismiss scientific theories simply because you don't care for their proponents.[/QUOTES]
Theories (hypotheses) based on holy books are not scientific theories (hypotheses). A scientific theory (hypothesis) must be based on real world observations or other scientific evidence. It would be illogical to accept all of the world's creation stories as scientific theoies (hypotheses).

If a scientist wants to place his faith in an ancient manuscript he can do that but he can’t expect other scientists to accept his theories (hypotheses) simply on the basis of that ancient text. He has to go to work, do some research, and produce valid scientific evidence.
[QUOTE who="Job"]Ironically , Dawkins feels the Bible should be placed in public libraries. He's got a nutty idea that everyone's going to read it and have a bad reaction to it. As nutty as that idea is, I support that view of his. Maybe evolutionists should do the same concerning creationism/intelligent design.
You see he’s not so bad.
Job wrote:
4. I think you're trying to twist my question into a "is it possible?" question, which leads to the inevitable "it's possible there's an invisible flying teapot circling the earth" type answer. It wasn't that kind of a question. The question I asked you was "can a God who created the Universe cause one of his creations (an animal or reptile) to talk"? Very simple question. Yes, or no?
There is no difference between…

“can a God who created the Universe cause one of his creations (an animal or reptile) to talk “

and…

“is it possible for a God who created the Universe cause one of his creations (an animal or reptile) to talk”
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#458 Mar 5, 2013
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
3. I have no doubt that they work hard. In reality, the logical approach for evolutionists would be to embrace creation scientists wholeheartedly. They should welcome the challenges made by creationists with open arms, rather than attempting to quiet them. We might even say, evolutionists 'need' creation scientists. If there's nothing to fear from creation scientists, then place it all on the table for the public to see, and let 'them' make their choice.
Scientists do welcome criticism but not from every fanatic with some wild idea based on some holy book or extraterrestrial theory. They welcome criticism based on scientific evidence and rational thought.

“Advocates of the ideas collectively known as “creationism” and, recently,“intelligent design creationism” hold a wide variety of views.… No scientific evidence supports these viewpoints.”– U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
Job wrote:
I understand where you're coming from, but just because some scientists place their faith in an ancient manuscript doesn't render it false. It's illogical to dismiss scientific theories simply because you don't care for their proponents.
Ironically, Dawkins feels the Bible should be placed in public libraries. He's got a nutty idea that everyone's going to read it and have a bad reaction to it. As nutty as that idea is, I support that view of his. Maybe evolutionists should do the same concerning creationism/intelligent design.
Theories (hypotheses) based on holy books are not scientific theories (hypotheses). A scientific theory (hypothesis) must be based on real world observations or scientific evidence. If a scientist wants to place his faith in an ancient manuscript he can do that but he can’t expect other scientists to accept his hypotheses simply on the basis of that ancient text. Scientists are not going to accept every creation story in the world as evidence. He has to go to work, do some research, and produce valid scientific evidence.
socci

Plattsburg, MO

#459 Mar 5, 2013
madscot wrote:
Faith is not required. Science is based on facts.

The laws of science are based on facts. Law = fact. Evolution is just theories, not science.

The faith of Jesus or Christianity is based on facts, including science that confirms the biblical account, and the history of Christianity including Jesus.

When you get any science to prove your theories we'll look at it.
socci

Plattsburg, MO

#460 Mar 5, 2013
Big Al wrote:
Scientists do welcome criticism but not from every fanatic with some wild idea based on some holy book or extraterrestrial theory.

The fanatic is the one with no evidence - You.

Your rhetoric will not substitute for science.

try harder.
socci

Plattsburg, MO

#461 Mar 5, 2013
Big Al wrote:
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.

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”.

Understand I dont believe in your "caveman" or any other of your theories with no evidence. When you get some evidence then produce it!

Just one?

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#462 Mar 5, 2013
Cliff09 wrote:
<quoted text>
EVolution
What answer do I have on the fact that Evolution proofs that God could not have created the world in seven days, as we reed in the book of Genesis - O.T.
As we read, when God created men he used clay, while he could have created them out of thin air.
So it is possible, and perhaps the only explanation, that when God created the earth he did not create it out of thin air, but from a existing piece of rock from a by-gone age. A piece of rock on which people and animals did live, but the which had been desolate, dried out and without and uninhabitable for millions of years. He then created the earth on this piece of rock, with man and animals. And that then explains why we find skeletons which are millions of years old in the dirt of the earth.
But, Christians don't need proof, for they live by faith in the laws and the promise of Jesus. They know that all those doubt-rousers are placed before them to try their faith, and they must find no persuasion toward doubting the truth of the Gospel, even if one or more books of the O.T. tell an inaccurate story.
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/evoluti...
Ummm Ok ( walks away shaking head) I guess god kicked the other gods butt for dropping the ball. Dunno

Jazybird58

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#463 Mar 5, 2013
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problem is that you have great faith in corrupt, lying humans. You have ZERO proof of the evolution dating system.
Look 2buckchuck, if you are clueless just say I don't know. Sometimes its better if you remain silent.
socci

Plattsburg, MO

#464 Mar 5, 2013
madscot wrote:
Not all galaxies have had as many past supernova eruptions as the MWG. Dwarf irregular galaxies, like the Small and Large Magellanic Clouds, for example, consequently show a much lower density of supernova remnants. A few years ago, after an initial search of these two galaxies,[one team of astronomers found two supernova remnants] whose expansion rates and remnant diameters established that the remnants were 95,000 and 25,000 years old respectively.4

Since then,[other such supernova remnants], provably older than the bounds of the young-earth creation model, have been found in those galaxies.5
Even in Earth’s own galaxy, the young-earth claim is proving to be false. Within the halo of the MWG, supernova remnants stand out more prominently against the background because supernova eruptions occur there more infrequently than in the galaxy’s disk. Two astronomers, Jeroen Stil and Judith Irwin, measured the age of the supernova remnant, GSH 138-01-94, located in the far outer edge of our galaxy and discovered it to be 4.3 million years old.6
http://www.reasons.org/articles/galactic-supe...

Notice the 25k & 95K are far too young for the purported 15 billion years claimed by big bangism, and those SNR dates are still theory based on expansion we were not there to witness, thus could just as easily be much younger.

The fact remains the number of SNRs of a particular size, i.e. none have reached the stage expected if the universe were billions of years old.

• Supernovas prove young universe!

http://creation.com/exploding-stars-point-to-...
socci

Plattsburg, MO

#465 Mar 5, 2013
Big Al wrote:
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.

You cant even figure out the apes have always been apes and man always man.

First prove the age of the earth before we move on to debunking big bangism and stellar evotardism.

Another piltdown hoax exposed!

Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten lied about the age of neanderthal skulls and artifacts for 30 years. A German university panel exposed his frauds and he resigned Feb 2005. Protsch had dated the "bischof-speyer" skeleton at 21,300 years but testing at Oxford showed them to be 3300 years old.

http://archive.org/details/NeanderthalCaveman...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#466 Mar 5, 2013
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Reasonable does not apply to you.
You have a talking snake.
Your 'proof' is your faith in depraved humans. There is no proof of evolution.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#467 Mar 5, 2013
Cliff09 wrote:
<quoted text>
The question is: how much proof have you got and what explanation, for the existance of God and his creation of the world in 7 days?
Who has more proof?
As I said: christians ought not to take on science, because they are bound to loose the battle!
http://www.theholychristianchurch.com/evoluti...
You have no proof, so what's your point? You want proof? Ok. When you pass through death's door you will have it. Hell fire. But it will be too late for you.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#468 Mar 5, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Look 2buckchuck, if you are clueless just say I don't know. Sometimes its better if you remain silent.
In other words, you have no proof but insults and lies.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#470 Mar 5, 2013
__- Really-__ wrote:
<quoted text>What and where is your proof, the ownis is on you dearie.
The proof is, WE NEVER HEARD OF YOU.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#472 Mar 5, 2013
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
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.

2. <quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>

3. 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.
<quoted text>
1. I think you mean 'scientists' are not void of morality. Science is not a personality. When I say 'void', I mean that science does not make moral judgments. And I'm not suggesting that 'religion' has the monopoly on morality.'Religion' like any other institution has corruption. This includes the science 'community'(not science).

This idea you present that evo scientists are all in some sort of unison of thought is highly flawed. There are some very decent, moral evolutionists, and there are some who torture animals (and not for the better of mankind). The problem with your idea is that you think if Watson provided the right kind of evidence, there would be no more offense. Scientists propose theories or ideas that are not absolutely proven to be fact. They may present ideas they may actually believe are valid, but the acceptance from others may vary. For those who don't entirely dismiss the ideas, at the very least they may consider the proposition further. The idea you are suggesting is that this is a unique case where Watson would need 'absolute' undeniable proof. No room for considerations. And then, and only upon provided undeniable proof, everything would then be okay. Personally, I don't think you really believe that.

2. Being descended from lower life forms is no big deal. This puts us all in the same boat, just as it would coming from dirt. What is apparent is that the human ego is offended about the idea of being in need of redemption. And what if it were believed that science shows that some races are less intelligent than others by the majority of scientists?

3. Seizures and convulsions are not the same thing. Much of that is due to a medical problem. When referring to multiple voices coming from one individual, that's a different ball game.
HGJ

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

#473 Mar 5, 2013
.

.

&li st=PLD29DF97C8175EE79

.

.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#474 Mar 5, 2013
__- Really-__ wrote:
<quoted text>God has, he is all that matters.
Which God? You don't even know.

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
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 10 min Knowledge- 9,315
Do you believe in tolerance for Gay Christians? 28 min par five 191
Poll Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 36 min Demon Finder 5,736
God Has Preordained All Things 1 hr Demon Finder 6
If the Bible is True Barnsweb is a ... 1 hr Demon Finder 95
Dead Sea Scrolls Fail To Mention Jesus 2 hr Barnsweb 47
Jesus admitted he isn't God, so why do Christia... (Oct '11) 2 hr Barnsweb 60
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 8 hr KAB 1,856
Design, Nowhere Evident 9 hr Atheistgirl 256
More from around the web