Anyone else notice this pattern?

this has truth, and is sad.it is the analogy of the blind leading the blind. there is only one Christ, only one God. yet many different interpretations.for instance, many who call themselves Christians speak of the glory the Christians will find when they stand before God having been good men and believed. but the truth is, glory belongs to God. and on the day we stand before him, those who come seeking their own glory will not find it. but those who come seeking Gods glory will find pure joy in having pleased God.in the evolution argument, what christian has any power over your view? when so many don't even understand the christian principles to love their God, to humble themselves before him, and to love one another?its scary. but the evolutionist will still find that their science does not support life, but is only an observation of a part of it. the foundation that supports all of existence, is the law of existence, which is the law of God. and how can i pass blame on any evolutionist for what they do not understand, when the Christians who proclaim God is, do not understand it either?we are all to blame for our own blindness. because the truth has stood before us in eternity, and we have chosen to ignore it. i for so long, and others yet still, perhaps forever for them. but i have hope that somewhere, somehow, the blind will see, and the blind who lead the blind will see, and the world will know.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

For some six months I've been entertaining myself at this web address.I can no longer contain myself,I wanna play.I may get my ass kicked but thats nothin new. So here goes.....Taz,you crack me up.Bastard!..Was that his coffee break? Lunch?This is a perfectly clear illustration of Riverrat's point.See,though you may have an education and you may be able to repair your vehicle you lack any understanding of how to safely operate that vehicle. Whats it called when someone uses a false statement to support their point? This isn't rocket science here,just basic defensive driving. I'm not surprised,in fact I'm surprised they gave you anything.Yes. I hope you understand that yours is not behind the wheel...............That was fun!.....Keep your stick on the ice.Edited by Hill Billy, : cause I'm a hillbilly

---

"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.

Nator,as someone who has never even taken a reading comprehension exam (if I did I'm sure I failed miserably,) and as yet has had no trouble understanding Riverrat,I have a question. Wouldn't highly evolved and finely tuned comprehension skills allow one to comprehend even the most poorly written stuff?I mean whats so special about comprehending well written material? Perhaps a slightly less elevated nasal position might provide a clearer view of the screen which in turn might lead to greater comprehension.Edited by Hill Billy, : cause hillbillies love editin

---

"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.

I'm still laughing and i so love your honesty, it leaves me to question how you would interpret my own beliefs being so simple and honest. you are so refreshing, i hope coming here does not change that in you we all have areas that need improvement, and as a human i salute you in acknowledging your own

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Sure, if the only problem is that it's poorly written, but not if it's unintelligible, incomprehensible or nonsense. The primary point of this thread is that some people's writing skills are so poor that you can't tell if it's nonsense or just poorly written.--Percy

quote:

---

What if creationism was 50% true and evolution was 50% true?

---

What if Creationism was 100% false?Guess what? It is 100% false.

quote:

---

Neither can totally prove or disprove their claims.

---

Of course, the claims of science and Biology are supported by a great deal of evidence from nature.Creationism's claims are not. Period.The only reason people believe Creationist claims is through religious convicion combined with ignorance of science.

quote:

---

the point is, even if someone was to show people beyond all shadow of a doubt that God is, that Jesus died for you, and even produced scientific proof, and physical proof, it wouldn't matter, because unless they have released some of their dogmatic views of the world, no other view will suffice regardless.

---

That is not true at all.If there was real, reliable scientific, physical proof of god, jesus, etc., of course I would accept the evidence, just like I accept any scientific explanation.Of course, that means that the acceptance would be subject to revision if new evidence comes to light...

quote:

---

Nator,as someone who has never even taken a reading comprehension exam (if I did I'm sure I failed miserably,) and as yet has had no trouble understanding Riverrat,I have a question. Wouldn't highly evolved and finely tuned comprehension skills allow one to comprehend even the most poorly written stuff?

---

No.

quote:

---

I mean whats so special about comprehending well written material? Perhaps a slightly less elevated nasal position might provide a clearer view of the screen which in turn might lead to greater comprehension.

---

I've asked for explanations, many times.What I've usually gotten in reply is contentless, sarcastic one-liners.What rat does quite often, I think, is this:He will write something in an unprecise manner which expresses something he didn't mean to say, and then gets pissed off at everybody else for responding to what he wrote instead of what he didn't write but really meant to say.Or, he really did mean to say exactly what he wrote, and then people completely demolish and shred his post to pieces, and then he comes back and tries to save face by saying something like, "That's not what I meant/said at all, and I can't believe all you people hate me for believing in God". This then requires him to make more word salad to try to twist out of what he said before.Lastly, and perhaps the most bemusing behavior of all is when he appears to have written a meaning into a post that he later says he didn't intend, his respondants call him on it, yet he digs in his heels and begins defending the view he says he never meant to express!That's my take, anyway, after a few years of debate with him. Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

I don't think I explained my question very well. I do apologise.
I wasn't acually meaning arguing against evolution. I meant speaking in their own personal field without it involving your evolutionary theory or fact.I believe they have their own theory of evolution that does not equate with yours. Each side believes theirs is the correct one and the other is incorrect. Personally, I see them as entirely different subjects.It is implied that creationists cannot argue against your belief through some lack of understanding. That is widely accepted.All their evidence is from bible interpretation and belief system. There is no science/physical evidence to back up the meanings, the morals, the laws, the miracles, god, angels, 6day creation, adam and eve. Their beliefs are formed entirely from bible interpretation and belief in god and afterlife.You cannot mix science with a belief system, as is perfectly obvious to me. Any attempt at proving biblical meanings scientifically would be fruitless.In view of the above, my question was, how good/bad are they in presenting their own theories of bible interpretations?An after thought: could religion appeal to the emotions and science appeal to the mind? Edited by Heinrik, : after thought

Thanx but I never really thought about it.Maybe later.My brain hurts rite now.I might be complicated and full of shit. I don't remember ever not changing.I'm not sure but I think you might have missed the point,if I had one,maybe.

---

"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.

Are you stating that if you find it unintelligible or incomprehensible it's nonsense? Hmmm,ya,I get that,and what was the secondary point?

---

"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.

Can you prove there is no god?Can you prove this theory E=MC2I do not believe either can prove the other 100% wrong.

Really.Hmmm.Hardly seems worth the effort. Ok,and I'm askin for one, now.Please,for a one-liner to be sarcastic wouldn't it need to have some,oh,I don't know,maybe content?What I'm getting in reply from you is this:I think it's called deflection,I dunno.You could ask you husband,the esteemed psycologist .Will you answer my question?

---

"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.

Yes,hmm,I wonder what else science can't handle,surely not just "God" and "devil"?

---

"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.

Creationism ≠ god.Creationism is easily disproven. This has nothing to do with either god or creationism.