I'm conflicted about the Bible. Will you discuss it with me?
- Thread starter Conflicted
- Start date
Go ahead and find it then. I'll even make it easier for you, not ever, not ever can a one toed mammal become anything but a one toed mammal. No wings, no roots, no gills. Lots more breeds of one toes mammels, some big when food is plentiful and smaller when food is scarcer, too scarce and extinction. Unlucky and extinction.
If the true Darwinism could exist then a line for all the species that went extinct should be able to be 'plotted' using the same program we use to 'fill in the blanks' for the history trail that we have 'invented'. If we chanced out to be 'the best' then what combination of flukes beat out others and how would they have evolved.
[/QUOTE]
Puff, is that you, after all these years, they said you were gone forever, ....
Easy eh, you gave it up, Dex gave it up, 3500 (apparently somebody counted cause I didn't) Sects don't have a full clue. Science is still writing, rather rewriting so why not wait till they are done and then compare the two as far as size and enlightenment, with a dual story-line thrown in just in case you get bored. But then you don't looked bored in the picture. 'cliffy' must be because you keep running over them after you get thrown.
The proof that comes with science must be on a different flight.
What proof do you demand that I show you that would 'prove God exists'? Substantial would most likely fit in there. Science pats itself on the back over the way it has 'proof for everything' yet the 'scientists' around here do nothing but demand proof from 'creationists'. Showing proof needs more than a court order it would seem.
So for long-lived species like alligators and sharks the world has been 'stable' for as long as they have been around. That either means they adapted to a changing world or the world is pretty much the same. Let's go with 'the same' for those creatures. No changes would seem to be because the habitat stayed the same then no 'adaptation' was needed. If your version of 'evolution' is always going on then why was their evolution stunted or eliminated while others from a 'similar background' during the same period couldn't 'evolve' fast enough and they went extinct.
Which means the original theory was the first straw in a haystack and they have just started. Don't hold your breath waiting for any 'quick revelations'.
That is not hinting at 'repeat a lie often enough that people will start to believe it' that is promoting it's use as a 'teaching tool', do you even read the stuff you post?? That is what a 'fact' is defined as being, evolution has too many gaps for it to have any 'confirmation' other than a group supporting a theory rather than it being an individual. supporting a (non-provable) theory.
Who was it?? Peter, Paul and Mary, Puff the Magic Dragon, you must know the song and how it was just a 'code-word' for 'pot', Same as Dex promotes for Revelation and in Puff's case it was the right call.
As for gibberish, I couldn't even tell which part of the post you were referencing, this is the shorter and nicer reply.
Not only do you know nothing about evolution, you know nothing about science in general either. Science has never claimed to have proof for everything, it's a set of methods for gathering and analysing evidence and standards defining the quality of evidence and analysis required to justify accepting a claim as true. Creationism is an empirical claim about the nature of the world and is thus amenable to scientific investigation, all you're being asked to provide is evidence and analysis that meets the standards.
You can't do it because there isn't any. All you've really got is the argument from authority fallacy based on a text thousands of years old, stirred up with the argument from ignorance and the argument from personal incredulity fallacies. And sometimes you throw in a straw man or an ad hominem. Your comprehension of science, what it is, how it works, what it claims, is completely wrong, which realistically means you actually understand less than nothing about it.
Can you say whether this is correct or not. Boiling point of gasoline = weeks isolation in the burn ward = one time lesson. If that only works in my world is the 'math' wrong. The math used to reconstruct the past uses 'probables' and you want me to see it as being = concrete. That is using logic to arrive at that conclusion.
It has leaned on the things they do have proof for to defend them taking a 'probable' and eliminating the other probables by fair means or foul. (not meaning intentional, I mean a base that is wrong)
When you can't fully provide evidence for evolution? You can't even personally place this example in the right category. You tend to slam my arguments as being fanciful and made up and such, yet you offer nothing as a answer, you even said why, it was just too foolish to entertain. That is your reaction to the Bible in general, it has little to do with an actual passage and rather than the flood lets use Isa:65 as the example. If Jews had a different outlook on it's meaning then they couldn't have influenced a writer for something in the NT. A 'yes' or 'no' will work if you feel a rant about the Bible in general coming on. Isa:65 is to the ones who Jesus kills at His return, it tells who they are and what steps were made to prevent anybody being there because it is a place of sadness compared to joy. That being said the sadness is temporary and the last portion of that chapter deals with that period in their future. If you don't agree with that then you should be obligated to listen to the evidence that comes in the form of 20 pages of Scripture that points to my version being 'probable' compared to your version which offers 0 pages of evidence 'because it isn't worth the time and trouble' (although you do have the time to post replies that say nothing, only why you can comment on whatever but do not have to reply to any feedback. Typical scientist or what? Go ahead and complain that I'm using a wide brush, you do that also, we've had numerous conversations about 'creation/evolution' so you know how I differ from 'the other views'. It's fine that you don't agree, as that is something that is usually used when talking with other creationists.
The all illusive word, define 'proof of God'? I've also said the Bible promotes that no proof will be available during a period where the liter 'word of God' (the Bible) is all the information there is. If physical proof is impossible to find then examination of the Bible is the next step in looking for proof. It is real, you can hold it and handle it and it does speak in a manner that all written things speak. How do you use it to prove anything, well you examine each and every part of the text using modern methods. For instance, before an e-bible finding all the references to 'day of the Lord' would be a daunting task for even a 'professional' let alone finding a verse that says 'polished shaft' and being able to 'fit it into' something written in Revelation but not fully explained. If the Bible contains a few instances where something is 'being explained' then are those isolated incidences (unlikely) or does it point to an explanation being possible if you get the various passages in the right order. If this fully mesh and it's very 'complex' then does that point to God existing. If you don't allow that sort of proof and you reject the ancient stonework being possible only if Genesis 6 was 'true' then you are not looking for the truth, you have an agenda against the Bible or God or both so that is the only direction things can go. I'm content with my view of God to the point I can read lots in the Bible and still 'like' Him shows we are on different paths. The reason you don't have better insight is you have the stance of the kid who refuses to budge. Put him in freon of traffic and he will budge himself. I'm convinced that God gathers everybody before they can be lost to the lake so you not being gathered now is of no consequence and doesn't require any action at all on my part.
Considering the last people who wrote in the Bible were alive that long ago kind of points to the Bible being accurate at least. Write about an event that happened 2,000 years ago and the accuracy rating takes a tumble. If you add in the component that their 'teacher' was somebody who knows the full future. (teacher because they all say they are delivering a message to somebody and the message is from God. Not only that but the Book also has places where the ones being talked to are from the time of the prophecy unfolding. Isa:65 is an example and certainly not the only one.
'Less than nothing' another 'scientific term'?
"Easy eh, you gave it up, Dex gave it up, 3500 (apparently somebody counted cause I didn't) Sects don't have a full clue. Science is still writing, rather rewriting so why not wait till they are done and then compare the two as far as size and enlightenment, with a dual story-line thrown in just in case you get bored. But then you don't looked bored in the picture. 'cliffy' must be because you keep running over them after you get thrown."
In case it was this part you were referring to. Your 'poster' said reading one book was the 'easy way out' and only studying lots of books could you 'get the facts'. Most of my reply says it isn't an easy book and 'proof was given'. Are you fulfilling your own prophecy that says 'proof will be rejected'. That wasn't a surprise to me back when you made the statement.
The last part was saying that it was you in the poster as the rider. You up to speed now?
The more upset you become, the less coherent your become. You presented evidence debunking evolution from a creationist web site. It was totally fallacious. I posted a rebuttal with info that stated the actual details of what evolution is a bout and you wrote some gibberish that was incomprehensible, and now you write this ridiculous rant about (your) god knows what. You are losing it man. Take a few deep breaths and get some oxygen back in your brain.
I can and I have. I've provided links and the names of good books to read and explained as much as I can in the limited space and time I have available in this forum. You just don't want to know, the knowledge doesn't suit your prejudices, and since they're obviously the core of your being, you'll never critically examine them, never surrender them, and never understand what's true about the world you inhabit. Reality is far grander, more challenging, more complex, and more interesting, than anything ever dreamed up by any religion, and you're going to miss it all. You are to be pitied.
So old the library didn't even have them. There are oodles of documentary sites out there with new ones, if the theory from 1950 still holds water it is repeated, if not the updated version is what is important. Jews that do not believe in Jesus yet believe in God go by the understanding that was established by about the time Daniel was writing his book. If what Daniel wrote covers events that are still in our future would it not be 'logical' to study any books written after Daniel. For that study the 4 gospels would come right after Daniel 12 and that would begin with the 70 weeks as the coming of the Messiah prophecy and how that played out in relation to prophecy and historical events. If Jews of today hold to the old teachings they are not considering all the Scripture that is available to them. It is no wonder that their view (be it right or wrong) is different from the NT view (be it right or wrong as there are many to choose from). Using the 'updates' and having access to the same books on a computer means you can re4ad much more than any group of scholars did 'back then'. If that was part of the original design for putting all the prophecies in little pieces so 'a person' would know the whole thing (at least have access to it all at a moments notice) would be gibberish to anybody who reads them (just a part and then no real guidance to keep the right version in sight), having a computer makes it possible for one person to be asked about, 'what is grace?' and a word search for it takes 3 seconds, going and reading the 20 or so passages takes a few hours, thinking about for the rest of that one day and then giving a summary is going to be more accurate (according to the Bible) than a memory from some study done as a child in Sunday school (or something similar) If yopu have time for this post why not spend the same time on something that could be classified as an answer.
This is where you can't see how wrong you are. My view on the Bible is considered 'different' by other Christians I have chatted with over the last decade. I would consider them 'quite involved and incorporating many aspects of the Bible' but they were anything but 'holding onto my prejudices' because I ended up rejecting many of the major doctrines like the pre-trib rapture dream. You can't do that if you are holding onto a previously held view, for me the deatils of the seals, trumps and vials had just started. The thread would look much different today but the main theme is still there as far as to how they relate to each other. It would appear my core-belief is getting more precise as far as being able to reference different passages and how they relate overall to what the Bible is trying to tell us in as plain as language as possible. If you can't follow what I'm saying you have to consider the error is on your end, that is if your ego would allow that, i don't think it will, so far you have proved that.
That is usually the way it is when you are figuring things out. If you had to view the Bible as being that way then you would have to reevaluate your position, I don't see that happening this late in the game.
Said the fly to the spider.
But then you wouldn't know any science if it sat on your face and shat. So if appelations like "useful idiot" suit you, you might as well wear them with pride instead of trying to convince anyone here you are anything but.
I think you must have been at the crack again or something. I've never came to any conclusion about WMDs in Iraq.
Just as I thought; no rational reply.
Look, fool, I don't have an opinion on the WMDs in Iraq nor do I even give a crap about it. So get that into that tiny little mote of antimatter between your ears.
roflmao Whatta maroon. What are the Different Types of Evolution?
Ah, so it wasn't gods that did it. See? I was pretty sure there was a more rational solution than Noah's flood.
I probably do, but that's irrelevant.
I didn't complain the stories are too hard, idiot, I just said they're nonsense.
Right, there's not much that is rational in religions. And therein lies the deception.
lol Who hates the Bible? I think it's just as full of nonsense as anything else I've read and laughed about.
Don't listen? I hear music coming from the radio. Is there something else I'm supposed to hear?
Don't see? I see a fool posting nonsense that sprouted from a nonsense book.
Ignorant? There's not much worth anything in the Biblical "documents" that isn't worth being educated about. The entire batch of "documents" are based upon a big pile of "maybes" and suppositions.
I learned from it. Unfortunately, there are better books from which to learn things.
Perhaps, but you wouldn't know.
Ya think?
Yeah, well we all can't be as sane as I am.
Definitely.
I can't expect you to. You seem to peer at reality through a heavily filtered pinhole.
Doesn't take much to impress you I guess. Certainly anything in science is well over your head.
lol I can't hate the Bible any more than I could hate a joke book. That's your ASSumption.
Deluded? hehe You're the one who chooses to believe in gods, goblins, gremlins, and other fantasies over reality, not me.
Ah, you didn't understand the comment so you laugh. Figures.
Exactly. You have just shown that you haven't the capacity to understand evolution.
Yep. That's one definition. Funny how some virii have evolved to become resistant to known antibiotics. We call the superbugs now.
More observed evolution?
Evolution -- Transitionals & Observed Speciation
Observed Instances of Speciation
THE EVOLUTION LIST: Macroevolution: Examples and Evidence
Now put away your dictionary. It's dangerous for you.
lmao Sorry, but that is straight out baloney. features on a member of a species are entirely up to its DNA. A brief overview of Hox genes : Pharyngula
Here's a little more evolution for you.
Evolution: Library: Whale Evolution
Wrong, as usual. There have been significant changes in sharks and lizards over the years. For instance, there were sharks around in the cretaceous period that were so huge they'd make our modern great whites look like guppies. The megalodon grew to be around 70 feet long and weighed 50 tons.
Some species don't evolve nearly as quickly as others. Some hardly change at all. Some change drastically such as the whales who became marine mammals from land mammals.
Adaptation to environment leads to the evolution of the species in that particular environment as different genes become activated or deactivated.
Then there are the other forms of evolution. But here; read up on some myths about evolution: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Last edited:
Right. I was just on the site of the Red Deer public library. A simple keyword search on authors found three of them that I know I recommended, one of Ernst Mayr's, What Evolution Is, and two of Richard Dawkins', The Selfish Gene and Climbing Mount Improbable, a search on the subject keyword Evolution found 220 citations. You didn't even look. You shouldn't lie about things that can be so easily checked. And now that we have proof that you're not above deliberately lying to bolster your case, your credibility, what little there was, has vanished.
Last edited:
Go find it in the isle. This is the repy i got after not being able to find anything online Search this Site | Red Deer Public Library
Search this Site
Enter your keywords:
Your search yielded no results
- Check if your spelling is correct.
- Remove quotes around phrases to match each word individually: "blue smurf" will match less than blue smurf.
- Consider loosening your query with OR: blue smurf will match less than blue OR smurf.
Dawkins has lots of vids out so which one and what time should I pay attention to a specific point that you are wanting me to look at.
You give up way too easily when you don't really want to know something, and I'll bet that's the first time you tried it. It's not the web site you want to search, it's the library's holdings. Pick the "Library Catalogue" item from the column on the left of that page and try again. On the web vids, pick anything of Dawkins', and look for Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Neil de Grasse Tyson too, you'll find out what's wrong with a lot of your ideas. But if you don't believe anything people here tell you, you probably won't believe them either.
But here's a good start:
Last edited:
The video's a good start for what? That Dawkins gives proof that God shows himself to different people, in different parts of the world, in different ways? That Dawkins can't disprove what the gentleman states, but in fact can only voice his opinion which is worth no more than any other laymans opinion? Dawkins rantings aren't proof of anything.
Sure as **** I would know, you even got that wrong. Is that title there because I have an opinion or because it's different than yours. Anybody being right and you being wrong would be a blow to your ego, I'm quite willing to admit I don't fully understand all Da:11 covers but I do know the 'popular opinion pieces never tackle the time jump question attached to the last verse in the chapter. I don't have to accept their version if that remains an unanswered issue.
Not my thing, too bad so many that I know decided to go down that road. They aren't really capable of holding a conversation that covers many things in a short period of time, that doesn't mean they don't understand everything as it all still gets covered it just takes several shorter conversations, that is an example of adaptation, that is not an example of a move that evolution will support, that group will become extinct before the ones that can retain a lot of information from just one meeting.
The laughing was the issue not being important enough that you would scroll back but you expect me to after I had already replied to it in the way I understood it when I replied. If I was wrong and you can spot lies in the news then what is a list of the last 10 items that was 'broadcast to the public' as a truth but was a lie (before being pointed out by others first if possible) The example I used is covered later in this post.
Well you should it was a big part of the case for originally expanding the war to fully include Iraq.
None of those 3 types involves warm blooded animals coming from cold blooded ones, like land animals first coming out of the ocean with cold blood and a spine that moved side-to-side (for starters). That is promoted by the evolution that everything came from a single species. There can be a 100 breeds in the same species of bird (to follow the example). Is it also not true that landing in the 'wrong' place meant extinction rather than survival in most cases? I don't have an issue with that sort of adaptation, nor the kind that allows for many breeds to be in one species but a species cannot change into another species. That also means fallen angels taking 5 fingered man and changing them into 6 fingered giants would be something that would piss God off. Men killing men would not have triggered the flood or the flood would have happened with Able's death.
I didn't say it was a result of Noah's flood, the flood was a small version of the flood that created the scablands.
Unless you were removing the rocks as part of the 'rescue team' then you don't know more than I do.
Show me the nonsense in who get punished in Jer:25. Is it nonsense to associate that chapter being there because Jeremiah was almost killed a chapter or two before. By using those Nations listed to punish Israel for killing the Prophets she did they themselves come under judgment and they don't make out all that well if many are said to die. Is that true or not?
Would that be the same deception mentioned or is yours a different one, one of the many that are said to be floating around even long before the last prophecies begin to unfold? If the Bible predicts that and it happens then it is not an irrational book. Therein lies the truth.
That is one side, you let that be the conclusion before you investigate all the other possibilities. That's evident it's no a guess.
Not if God is the topic, even then one version is the correct way rather than any version you may choose.
That is the way trolls act, like it or not. There were lots of things you could have replied to that weren't 'troll areas', I could have eliminated it entirely but you would not have known why, this way if something is missed yo know the reason.
Proving there is a God that we should thank.
If, 'What else is said' is a sign of filtering then I'm all for it, even when there are questions that almost defy having a reference for an answer.
More now than some decades earlier. Just one God and some fallen angels so far. With any luck old age takes a person before the 5th and 6th trumps manifest themselves. (only what you did in those last 3 1/2 are judged at the 7th trump. To die before that means resurrection to the 1,000 year reign without being alive for the 3 woes. If the last woman in Re:12 was covered for time, times, dividing of a time that could apply to the 3 woes, the 3rd woe being the day of the lord, protected for the first half of that last day and not needing protection after the two witnesses are resurrected as that is when Jesus is in control. Da:12:1 is part of the same passage the previous chapter ends with. Understanding more than that would impress me.
Put the prophecies together then if confusion isn't part of the reason for your 'dislike' for any part of the Bible.
At part of the reply, not the whole part.
I'm going by Genesis 1 and the general order for life rather than time. Creation would promote air, sea and land animals developing independent of each other, in that order and very long periods of time are involved, evolution promotes that it be one common path for those forms of life.
That's fine, having 'new' forms of destruction has always created a demand for changes to be made because of the hostility of the local environment. Bugs could have existed between the creation of water in vapor form and trees being able to shed fruit as a means of reproduction. they were not important enough to be mentioned there as they are mentioned before the end of day 6 which is the end of creation.
If a bug is a bacteria you kill it with a virus, same as always. Phage medicine would seem that virus change along with the bacteria so no 'superbugt' ever evolves
We'll see.
Sure looks like adaptation, as in breed of horses mean some can breed with each other and some can't. the ones who can't never reverse that trend. Take example 'C' is the root species are the next 'generations' still the same species (both classified as 'horses' but non reproductive is a breed change not a species change. 'After their kind' would be a species change in Genesis 1.
Example d is starting to show species and breeds (a,b,c,d) 'D' should be labeled 'life' at the top and then air, sea, earth for the three on the next lower row and then the breeds which they have correct.
I would call each of the examples adaptation in that they were both still the sam type of plant, just a new variety
5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation
The following are several examples of observations of speciation.
Same plants as the above link.
It isn't like I;m trying to read it like a mystery novel.
Whale Evolution:
Some details remain fuzzy and under investigation. But we know for certain that this back-to-the-water evolution did occur, thanks to a profusion of intermediate fossils that have been uncovered over the past two decades.
I would hope so, if investigations are still underway and there are 'fuzzy areas' then it means some promotions are boosted by theory alone, you can't deny it in Bible studies and allow it in Science determinations.
If it takes 3.5 million years to drop a limb how long to change from cold blooded to warm blooded and change the direction your spine moves?
That is not as drastic as the change they went through to become a mammal when you are a sea creature (who is a fish).
Fine it stays the same species though, those changes might be longer legs on a wolf led to them being the 'breed' that survived the environment best, a shorter legged version might have worked better in a slightly different environment.
Still reading
It had more to do with getting to the library and if he is correct he is not the only one teaching the same theory.
For understanding the religious delusion.He makes the point about how specific to culture religion is, that's the first clue.
I've seen that clip before, it was probably you that posted it. Do you still have to wonder why I don't pay much attention to you?