Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution or Creation
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 211 of 301 (396970)
04-23-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by iceage
04-22-2007 1:13 AM


Re: Biologist
with your parents and grandparents committed adherents of one of these religions,
But my parents and grandparents were not committed. They were all saved and committed many years after I was saved.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by iceage, posted 04-22-2007 1:13 AM iceage has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 212 of 301 (396974)
04-23-2007 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by dwise1
04-22-2007 4:02 AM


Re: Biologist
Uh, no. It wasn't science's fault, nor the hoax's fault, if anyone had decided to stop believing in God.
I was not refering to people that already believed in God but people that were born after the hoax and was told it was the missing link therby believing in man evolving from nothing and never giving God a thought. Remember this hoax lasted 41 years. But like I said if there is no God it didn't make any difference.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2007 4:02 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by jar, posted 04-23-2007 6:13 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 215 by dwise1, posted 04-23-2007 9:10 PM ICANT has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 213 of 301 (396981)
04-23-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by ICANT
04-23-2007 5:32 PM


never giving God a thought.
I was not refering to people that already believed in God but people that were born after the hoax and was told it was the missing link therby believing in man evolving from nothing and never giving God a thought. Remember this hoax lasted 41 years. But like I said if there is no God it didn't make any difference.
But possible relevance can the hoax have?
There are literally millions of missing links, man evolved from some primitive critter, likely single celled.
What does that have to do with GOD?
Evolution is a fact. Denying that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation to date for Evolution is an just silly. In the words of the Clergy Project:
To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.
Evolution is TRUTH.
Biblical Creationism is a LIE!
Again, from the Clergy Project:
We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.
By supporting Biblical Creationism you are rejecting the will of GOD.
Again:
To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.
You are placing a limit on GOD, instead of worshiping GOD, you are creating a God in YOUR image.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 04-23-2007 5:32 PM ICANT has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 214 of 301 (396997)
04-23-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by ICANT
04-22-2007 12:15 AM


Re: How is it possible
I am saying that since it says "IN THE BEGINNING", That time could have been any time in the past.
Which is why the world was most certainly created last Thursday.

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by ICANT, posted 04-22-2007 12:15 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2007 9:44 PM Jazzns has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 215 of 301 (397012)
04-23-2007 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by ICANT
04-23-2007 5:32 PM


Re: Biologist
dwise1 writes:
Uh, no. It wasn't science's fault, nor the hoax's fault, if anyone had decided to stop believing in God.
I was not refering to people that already believed in God but people that were born after the hoax and was told it was the missing link therby believing in man evolving from nothing and never giving God a thought. Remember this hoax lasted 41 years. But like I said if there is no God it didn't make any difference.
OK, you did say that in message 191, to which I was responding:
ICANT writes:
Now if I am correct that there is a God and a Heaven to gain and a Hell to avoid. Many of those people may go to Hell because of the hoax. Because they took it as the missing link and refused to believe God.
But what was the cause of that line, "Because they took it as the missing link and refused to believe God." What's the connection? Why would anyone believe that a missing link would require them to not believe [in] God?
Does science say that? No! Does anti-evolution religious rhetorics say that? Oh ja, you betcha! That was my point. So if you are responding to my post, then address my point!
Basically, you've got three groups of people affected by Piltdown:
1. Believers who refuse to look at the facts. They don't investigate, but rather reject everything out-of-hand that doesn't agree with their beliefs. Their rejection of Piltdown was because it was a missing link; it was only after scientists had exposed it as a hoax that they then switched to rejecting it because it was a hoax.
2. Believers who are willing to examine the facts. In this case, they fell for the hoax and they lost their faith because that is what their religion had taught them that they must do.
3. Non-believers who accepted Piltdown at face value and, because the religionists fervently preached that accepting evolution requires rejection of God, took the religionists at face value and rejected God.
When people do exactly what you teach them they must do, basic common courtesy calls for you to not make such a show of outrage and surprise.
If Piltdown caused anyone, believer or non-believer, to turn away from God, then the fault is that of what religion taught. The fault does not lie with what science teaches. Because science does not say anything about God, nor can it, nor does it claim to.
You should read some of the essays that Dr. Allan H. Harvey, a working physicist and a practicing Christian, wrote for his Sunday School classes: No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings.htm. In "Science and Christian Apologetics" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/apologetics.html) he tells of a co-worker from Taiwan, Albert, a non-believer just as you described:
quote:
One day there was an evangelist making noise on campus, and Albert asked me a question out of the blue: “How can you be a Christian and believe all that Creationism stuff?” I managed to mumble something about how “that stuff” wasn’t what Christianity was all about. But Albert’s question had illustrated the problems we have with science and apologetics.
Albert knew that the claims of so-called “creation science” about the Earth being only 6000 years old and so forth were ridiculous, like saying the Earth was flat. Can’t blame him for not wanting to be associated with that nonsense. But what’s worse is that that was the first thing that came to Albert’s mind about Christianity. Not the death and resurrection of Jesus. Not even the Golden Rule or the Ten Commandments. The anti-science noise had drowned out the Gospel so all Albert had heard was a false Gospel, one that was centered in a particular interpretation of Genesis rather than being centered in Christ. [Gal. 1:6-9]
Of course another problem was that, in the 2 or 3 years I had known Albert, I had failed to share my faith with him well enough to correct his misconceptions. Fortunately for me, that’s not our topic today.
My concern is what can we do to correct the misconceptions that people have (both people like Albert and some Christians) that the findings of science (geology, astronomy, biological sciences [including evolution]) are incompatible with Christianity, that embracing Jesus means rejecting science. And it’s a serious problem. It’s serious because there are people like Albert out there who know science, and we put stumbling blocks in the way of them even considering Jesus. You hear missionaries talk about unreached people groups; here’s a group of people that aren’t hearing the Gospel because they can’t get past the huge credibility barrier put up by the things some Christians say about science.
But it’s also serious because of its effects on Christians, and I’m especially worried about children. If we teach our children that they have to choose between science and faith, we're setting them up for a fall. Because some of them are going to grow up and study the real world God made and learn that what the church has told them about science is false. If we’ve taught them that the Gospel or the truth of the Bible depends on those things, then its like the house built on sand, their foundation gets washed away, and their faith may go with it. I think Jesus had some words about those who set people up to stumble on issues like this: [Luke 17:1-2] “Stumbling blocks are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung round his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble.”
So, how do we give our children a foundation that won’t crumble the first time they take a college science class, and how do we keep science from being a stumbling block to people like Albert? I’ve thought about these things a lot, and I’ve decided that at the root of our problems are two fundamental mistakes, and both of them involve taking our human philosophy and letting it dictate to God what he can and can’t do. I hope you’d all agree that dictating to God isn’t a good idea.
If you are so concerned about non-believers being misled into refusing to believe in God, then why do you insist on continuing to mislead them?
PS
On the matter of children raised on "creation science" being especially vulnerable, we have a PowerPoint slide that Kent Hovind would use (from his seminar tape 4, at 42 minutes, 55 seconds):
quote:
"75% of all children raised in Christian homes who attend public schools will reject the Christian faith by their first year of college."
video, "Let My Children Go" by Caryl Matritiano, VP Jeremiah Films, 800-828-2290, <Access denied>
No idea where they got their statistics from, nor what kind of a spin they tried to put on it.
For actual cases, visit ex-YEC Glenn Morton's page of personal stories and testimonials at No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/person.htm. Steve Smith's story is a good example:
quote:
Finally, I am extremely concerned about any movements within the Church that make statements like these:
"There seems to be no possible way to avoid the conclusion that if the Bible and Christianity are true at all, the geologic ages must be rejected altogether." (Henry Morris, _Scientific Creationism_, 1974 [1985 2nd ed.], p. 255)
"If the Darwinian theory is true, Genesis is a lie, the whole framework of the book of life falls to pieces, and the revelation of God to man, as we Christians know it, is a delusion and a snare." "If this hypothesis be true, then is the Bible an unbearable fiction; ... than have Christians for nearly two thousand years been duped by a monstrous lie. ... Darwin requires us to disbelieve the authoritative word of the Creator." (Two unnamed contemporaries of Darwin quoted in Andrew Dickson White, _A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom_, (Second printing, 1917, p. 71-72).
"If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true." (John Morris, _What is the Purpose of Creation Ministry_, in Institute for Creation Research, Back to Genesis Report No. 78, June 1995, p. d)
There is a very real danger in these pronouncements. When one bases their faith upon the rise or fall of a scientific theory, they are on real "sinking sand." When I left for college, I believed these sorts of either/or statements - many people do. If I had learned the facts of geology or biology or physics or astronomy or anthropology or geochronology or ... under the teaching of someone other than a godly professor, the crisis to my faith would have been much more severe. I feel it is very unlikely that I would be a Christian today. I would probably be a bitter agnostic and not because of science but because my Christianity set me up to fail.
I suppose that is why this Creation/Evolution issue is so important to me. I know that I sometimes talk about this topic so much that others get tired of hearing it. I know my wife does and I'm sure that my pastor does too. But when one has a close call with spiritual death, it becomes a critical issue. Every year, I see young Christians go away to college with the idea that science, in one form or another, is some sort of Satanic conspiracy. Sooner or later they end up struggling with their faith in the light of new knowledge. Some will survive because their faith is strong enough to overcome any evidence - many do not. I have met some bitter people who left the church because they believe that their religion "lied to them". I hate seeing this when I believe that it is so unnecessary. We as Christians need to be real clear about what is important to our faith and what is not.
When will the scales fall from your eyes, that you may begin to see?
Edited by dwise1, : PS

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by ICANT, posted 04-23-2007 5:32 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 216 of 301 (397037)
04-24-2007 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by nator
04-22-2007 9:54 AM


Re: Fraud
You made an insulting and serious accusation of widespread scientific fraud, such that many Biologists must be conspiring to falsify their data in order to promote a shared social agenda.
Support this claim or withdraw it.
Message 176
I am saying there have been many frauds that have been caught.
How many are there that have not been caught.
I asked you to stop putting words in my mouth.
I hope the following examples satisfy you if they don't go find your own all you have to do is type evolution fraud into yahoo search and you can find 306,000 sites. Google gives 2,220,000 sites.
Evolution Fraud and Myths
We already had Piltdown man.
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.
Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)
Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny?
Haekel's faked embryonic drawings
The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860's, promoting Darwin's theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)
Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis:
Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor
The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pass it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.
"Feathers For T-Rex?", Christopher P. Sloan, National Geographic Magazine, Vol. 196, No. 5, November, 1999, pp.99,100,105
Interesting Quote - "National Geographic has reached an all-time low for engaging in sensationalistic, unsubstantiated, tabloid journalism" Storrs L. Olson, Smithsonian Institution
Brontosaurus: One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed. The dinosaur's skeleton was found with the head missing. To complete it, a skull found three or four miles away was added. No one knew this for years. The body actually belonged to a species of Diplodocus and the head was from an Apatosaurus. (source: Paul S. Taylor, The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible, [Chariot Victor Publishing, 1989], pp.12-13)
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html
The most generally respected study on the origin of life is the Miller experiment conducted by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953. (The experiment is also known as the "Urey-Miller experiment" because of the contribution of Miller's instructor at the University of Chicago, Harold Urey.) This experiment is the only "evidence" evolutionists have with which to allegedly prove the "chemical evolution thesis"; they advance it as the first stage of the supposed evolutionary process leading to life. Although nearly half a century has passed, and great technological advances have been made, nobody has made any further progress. In spite of this, Miller's experiment is still taught in textbooks as the evolutionary explanation of the earliest generation of living things. That is because, aware of the fact that such studies do not support, but rather actually refute, their thesis, evolutionist researchers deliberately avoid embarking on such experiments.
Today, Miller's experiment is totally disregarded even by evolutionist scientists. In the February 1998 issue of the famous evolutionist science journal Earth, the following statements appear in an article titled "Life's Crucible":
Geologist now think that the primordial atmosphere consisted mainly of carbon dioxide and nitrogen, gases that are less reactive than those used in the 1953 experiment. And even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."259
In brief, neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.261
The Evolution of the Horse exhibition in London's Natural History Museum. This and other "evolution of the horse" diagrams show independent species which lived at different times and in different places, lined up one after the other in a very subjective presentation. In reality, there are no scientific discoveries regarding the evolution of the horse.
The evolutionist science writer Gordon R. Taylor explains this little-acknowledged truth in his book The Great Evolution Mystery:
But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change... The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.156
http://www.amnh.org/...sures/Evolution_of_Horses/horses.html
Cladistics, which the Museum has played an important role in developing, is the grouping of organisms by shared, specialized characteristics; each time a new evolutionary feature appears, a new branch grows on the evolutionary tree, comprising organisms that have both the old traits and the new one. Thus the display in the back shows that some later horses, such as Calippus, are actually smaller than earlier ones, and that other later horses, such as Neohipparion, still had three toes. This display is therefore both a classic demonstration of evolution and a paradigm of scientific method at the Museum.
LUCY:http://www.omniology.com/LucySkeletons.html
8 UN-ETHICAL EXAMPLES OF ACADEMIC LICENSE OR FRAUD BY SELF AGGRANDIZING (MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY) "EXPERTS" WHO HOLD THEIR INTERPRETATIONS TO BE INFALLIBLY TRUE.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-biologist.htm
J: "Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures - everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living."
Dead MothsGlued To The Trees![And More Evolution Frauds Exposed!]
How did they get on the trees for the photos and films? Two ways, both more dishonest than the Piltdown man hoax:
1) They were LABORATORY-BRED. The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on the hood of his car.
2) DEAD moths were GLUED to the trees! U-Mass biologist Theodore Sargent confessed to the dirty deed for a NOVA documentary. He also admitted that textbooks and films have featured "a lot of fraudulent photographs"
http://biobulletin.amnh.org/D/2/3/index.html
Where did modern horses come from?
Modern species of horses, such as the common horse, Equus caballus, evolved on the North American continent and migrated across the Bering land bridge into what is now Siberia. From there, horses spread across Asia into Europe and south to the Middle East and northern Africa. At the end of the Pleistocene epoch”about 10,000 years ago”a set of devastating extinctions took place in North and South America. Many large mammal species died out on the American continents, including mammoths, saber-tooth tigers, and all horse species. (The cause of these extinctions is unknown.
Page Not Found | UCI School of Humanities%
20Lecture.doc
Closer to home, and to our quarter, is the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in Avella, PA, evidence of human occupation that is 14,000-17,000 yrs. Old; Cactus Hill, VA, where tools have been discovere in layers 15,050 years old; etc. Since the middle of North America was still covered by glacier until about 11,500 yrs. ago, these people could not have crossed the continent. Speculation is now that these people came from the Solutrean culture of France and the Iberian Peninsula, roughly following the a northern route along the edge of a glacer past Greenland and down from Newfoundland, roughly the same route as Norseman Lief Erikson around 1,000 AD
If many large mammal species died out on the American continents, including mammoths, saber-tooth tigers, and all horse species.
How did man survive? If man survived why did not the horses?
If horses had been tamed for 20,000 years, did these humans not have tame horses? Just food for thought.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by nator, posted 04-22-2007 9:54 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by RickJB, posted 04-24-2007 3:36 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 222 by nator, posted 04-24-2007 9:17 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 224 by Quetzal, posted 04-24-2007 9:41 AM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 217 of 301 (397039)
04-24-2007 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Archer Opteryx
04-22-2007 2:06 PM


Re: Everything Is A Choice
Your testimonies on this thread look like attempts to better your bargaining position.
You candidly admit you could 'just as easily' believe something else.
If I said I could just as easily believe something else then I retract that statement. I will state below what I believe and hope that ADMINPD will allow it to stay long enough for you to read it.
You say I am seeking a better bargaining position.
First off I don't have anything to bargain with. I am a human being with a sin nature in me. As Paul said "even when I would do good evil is present with me." Isaiah said "my best is as filthy rags in the sight of God". I am in the same boat if not worse than these two great men.
Now my testimony: I believe God.
I believe God created the heaven and the earth in time past. (date undetermined).
I believe that before He did this God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit determined they would make man in their image. And because man would sin there had to be a sacrifice for my sin. God the Son agreed to be that sacrifice.
I believe many things happened.
Then one day Jesus Christ was born of a virgin. (science has proved that this is possible)
I believe at the age of 30 years old He began His personal ministry on earth.
I believe that His ministry lasted 3 1/2 years. During which time many miracles were performed.
I believe that the religious groups Pharisees and Saddusees contrived a plan to have Christ crucified.
I believe He was buried.
I believe 72 hrs later He walked out of that tomb.
I believe that He was seen on at least 7 different occasions by His disciples.
I believe He ascended to heaven to make intercession for my sins.
I believe that man is saved by grace alone.
I believe that grace is God's unmerited favor. There is no act or deed that we can do to merit this grace.
I believe that man without the shed blood of Jesus applied to his spirit will spend a conscience eternity in the lake of fire with the devil and the false prophets.
I believe that every person whose name is not recorded in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire.
I believe that all a person has to do to go to the lake of fire is be born, live and die.
I believe that for man to go to heaven he must realize he is a sinner and is not worthy of heaven on his own. When he has done this he then puts his faith and trust in God to do what God said He would do if man will only believe Him.
quote:
John 10:27 (KJV) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.
Roma 10:9 (KJV) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
I believe Jesus is coming again.
I believe there is a heaven.
I believe there will be a new heaven and a new earth.
I believe there will be no seas on the new earth.
I believe there will be a City The New Jerusalem. It will be 1800 cubic miles in size. The streets will be paved with pure gold.
I believe I will live in this city with God.
I know that if you could come up with the sum I mentioned 92.5 billion us dollars and offered it to me in exchange for my eternal life, I would say no thank you.
I know if you made me an offer of life over death in exchange for my eternal life I would choose death.
I choose to believe all these things and I will go to the grave believing them. There are a very few on this forum that can understand what I am saying.
Now for the rest of you, you choose to believe what you believe. I know you say no I just follow the evidence. Keep telling yourself that lie. You believe what you believe because you choose to do so.
I choose to believe God.
You choose to believe man and man's wisdom. But a word of warning, this world is the devil's domain until Jesus comes back and he is very deceitful and is the father of all lies. So can you really believe what you think you see?
Isn't it interesting that no one who talks about an afterlife lives in one?
Now if I was to tell you that in l965 science said I was dead for 3 hours and 20 minutes, and in that time I saw the City The New Jerusalem and the river of life that flows from the throne of God you would say, I was crazy, went off the deep end, was deluded or many other things you could think of. So I won't tell you that.
Many of you have said Atheism has nothing to offer me. You are right.
What can you offer a man that has everything.
You mention all the worldly goods you never got
I thought I said my God had supplied everything I needed. Lets see I have a beautiful waterfront home, a 2007 Entourage van, a 2007 Nissan pickup, and a farm. They are all paid for all I have to pay is the taxes each year to the government to keep them.
Apparently you did not read the post where I listed many things I had done because my God had given me several abilities. I did not do those things for free.
My God has supplied all these things.
Atheism would have given me the following:
DrJones told me I could free myself from superstition.
Doddy told me I would have more time, I wouldn't be obligted to follow any message of intolerance or ignorance. That I could get along better with atheist. That I could relate to reality better. That I could understand the rest of biology better. And I would be a better steward with God's creation.
Stile said Atheism has nothing for you.
Ringo said I had been told I would be free from ignorance and prejudice.
Would you like to add anything?

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-22-2007 2:06 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by RickJB, posted 04-24-2007 3:45 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 221 by Coragyps, posted 04-24-2007 8:59 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 223 by Stile, posted 04-24-2007 9:20 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 225 by ringo, posted 04-24-2007 10:05 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 226 by dwise1, posted 04-24-2007 10:22 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 227 by iceage, posted 04-24-2007 5:35 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 252 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-25-2007 2:54 AM ICANT has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 218 of 301 (397050)
04-24-2007 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by ICANT
04-24-2007 2:14 AM


Re: Fraud
ICANT writes:
Where did modern horses come from?
Modern species of horses, such as the common horse, Equus caballus, evolved on the North American continent and migrated across the Bering land bridge into what is now Siberia. From there, horses spread across Asia into Europe and south to the Middle East and northern Africa. At the end of the Pleistocene epoch”about 10,000 years ago”a set of devastating extinctions took place in North and South America. Many large mammal species died out on the American continents, including mammoths, saber-tooth tigers, and all horse species. (The cause of these extinctions is unknown.
Er, what? The horses that moved into Asia did not go exinct. Is says as much in the paragraph you posted! How exactly is this a problem for the ToE? How exactly does it constitute a "hoax"?
Most importantly, how do explain what appears to be a ham-fisted attempt on your part to mischaracterise this information?
The rest of your links, by the way, are a collection of the usual PRATTs sourced from crank sites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2007 2:14 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2007 9:50 PM RickJB has replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 219 of 301 (397051)
04-24-2007 3:45 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
04-24-2007 2:41 AM


Re: Everything Is A Choice
ICANT writes:
Atheism would have given me the following:
DrJones told me I could free myself from superstition.
Doddy told me I would have more time, I wouldn't be obligted to follow any message of intolerance or ignorance. That I could get along better with atheist. That I could relate to reality better. That I could understand the rest of biology better. And I would be a better steward with God's creation.
Stile said Atheism has nothing for you.
Ringo said I had been told I would be free from ignorance and prejudice.
Would you like to add anything?
How about a beautiful waterfront home, a 2007 Entourage van, a 2007 Nissan pickup, and a farm?
After all, none of these will be of much use in the afterlife will they?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2007 2:41 AM ICANT has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 220 of 301 (397059)
04-24-2007 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by ICANT
04-21-2007 11:48 PM


Re: Biologist
ICANT writes:
It doesn't have to prove where the first bacteria came from the ToE has to as far as I am concerned.
Why is this so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ICANT, posted 04-21-2007 11:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2007 9:54 PM Larni has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 221 of 301 (397070)
04-24-2007 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
04-24-2007 2:41 AM


Re: Everything Is A Choice
this world is the devil's domain until Jesus comes back and he is very deceitful and is the father of all lies.
Watch those pronouns, ICANT. They can get you in trouble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2007 2:41 AM ICANT has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 222 of 301 (397071)
04-24-2007 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by ICANT
04-24-2007 2:14 AM


lying for Jesus
ICANT, most of your sources are just plain lies.
At best, they are horribly misinformed.
And the ones that are correct you seem to be misreading, like the brontosaurus head issue. There is no fraud or hoax there. They just got it wrong at first and then corrected it when they learned more and got better information. What, scienctists are supposed to have perfect knowledge all the time for you to not accuse them of conspiring to deceive everyone else?
If you would like to open a thread to discuss each of the claims in turn, I am sure we could work through them fairly quickly, but there is too much to address here.
The question is, do you have the courage to do so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2007 2:14 AM ICANT has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 223 of 301 (397072)
04-24-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
04-24-2007 2:41 AM


Re: Everything Is A Choice
ICANT writes:
I know that if you could come up with the sum I mentioned 92.5 billion us dollars and offered it to me in exchange for my eternal life, I would say no thank you.
You keep bringing this up and saying this as if it should really mean something incredible to anybody. I'd be willing to bet that the large majority of people on this forum would refuse the same offer for much lesser promises than "eternal life".
I wouldn't accept that money if someone was going to take my girfriend away.
I wouldn't accept that money if someone was going to simply cut off the hand of a stranger to me.
Everyone has personal convictions that there is no monetary value that can be placed above them. To think this bribe is showing anyone something they haven't thought of before, or some level of conviction that others don't have is kind of naive.
I know if you made me an offer of life over death in exchange for my eternal life I would choose death.
Again, this isn't really anything new to anybody. Almost everyone has some sort of personal conviction that they would choose death before overturning.
There are a very few on this forum that can understand what I am saying.
If you feel that people are not understanding you, perhaps you could try explaining what you are saying, then?
Stile said Atheism has nothing for you.
No, not really. I've clearly explained what I've meant by that everytime I've said it:
IF you want to have promises rather than search for objective truth, THEN your strange notion of "atheism" (some sort of strict version of extreme naturalism) has nothing for you personally, ICANT.
Your mis-quote of my ideas is slightly telling. Perhaps it is you who is not understanding what is being said?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2007 2:41 AM ICANT has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 224 of 301 (397075)
04-24-2007 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by ICANT
04-24-2007 2:14 AM


Re: Fraud
It would be substantially off-topic to address each of these quotes here (this is Faith and Belief, after all). Pick one that you think is really really relevant and put up a PNT.
BTW: I thought you said that biologists were the ones committing all the fraud (or weren't getting caught, or whatever). There isn't a single biologist listed in any of those quotes. Even though they are all spurious, it appears most of the accusations are being leveled at paleontologists, with one abiogenesis (biochemistry) note. Do you have any actual biology frauds? If not, perhaps you might consider modifiying your original accusation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2007 2:14 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2007 7:35 PM Quetzal has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 225 of 301 (397083)
04-24-2007 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by ICANT
04-24-2007 2:41 AM


Re: Everything Is A Choice
ICANT writes:
Lets see I have a beautiful waterfront home, a 2007 Entourage van, a 2007 Nissan pickup, and a farm.
quote:
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
quote:
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Your "testimony" would be much more impressive if you left out the bits about the neat stuff God gives you.
Apparently you did not read the post where I listed many things I had done because my God had given me several abilities.
Everybody has abilities. We're not all so insecure that we have to brag about them.
I did not do those things for free.
Maybe you should have.
Maybe then you'd understand that life isn't all about the almighty dollar.
quote:
Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2007 2:41 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2007 10:10 PM ringo has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024