A question from a Christian

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Just the bible - I'm sure there are some snippets of truth in it, but it's a corrupted piece of work, serving only religious politics.

I am certain there is a creator. Too many things around us and us ourselves cannot be accidents. My certainty is not other's certainty of something else, though.

Corrupted? Evidence of its corruption? So there is a creator, but you don't know what he is or if he cares about you. Why do you toss out the Christian god as an option just curious?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: Tearman

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: Tearman
I read your user name, the thread title, and your post history, and all I have to say is...

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I do not argue against evolution because of my religious views, but simply because I do not believe it happens.

Lol, YEAH RIGHT!

Do you scrutinize every scientific theory so fervently?

Nope. Just the ones I feel aren't fact. So are you saying that because I believe in god I am some how void of the ability to disagree with a theory based on scientific reasons? ...

I'm saying as far as I can tell every single thread and post you've made has been religiously motivated. So ask yourself honestly when you first sought the truth about evolution? Did you even have any interest in science before someone told you evolution was a lie?

Name one other scientific theory you've examined in such detail. For fun, let's exclude topics having to do with global warming or vaccines.

Big bang theory. Certain parts of quantum theory. My interest lie in the origins of life. The origins of morality . the origins of the universe. I mean what makes you think its true? Science knows of no known genetic pathway for which evolution to operate within nor does it have any evidence that implies the types of morphological changes said to occur are even possible so why call it fact?

Why do you believe in the sun? I mean there is no known mechansim for which stellar fusion to operate and literally no evidence that implies that energy radiates outward from the sun to the planets. You can't go outside and look up at the sun, afterall.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Don't - just don't. If you try to defend that vile piece of trash I will only laugh in your face.

Edit: I don't toss out anything - I just don't believe that the writings of the insane and drugged of antiquity can be used thousands of years later as anything but grotesque horror stories to scare children.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why would I respond to such a ridiculous post. I am not going to spend the time to refute an entire book.

What a gem of a reply.

I'm not really sure how to respond to it. Should I laugh you to scorn for thinking that the theory of evolution and the evidence for it, all of which you hope to refute, is smaller and less complex than a single book?

Or should I condemn you for your provocative demand to be shown the linkage between the first living organism and a human being only so that you can refute it? (Not that I thought you were asking an honest question, or anything.)

Oh, ye generation of hypocrites. The least I can do is give your post a star. After which I may print it out and frame it.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

I don't know.. It works as a history of what not to do.

Don't commit genocide like the Hebrews did to the phillisteans and others.

Don't keep slaves ( the bible says it's cool).


Don't kill your child because a voice in your head said to.


Don't let religious law control society..


There's a lot we can learn from the bible..

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Evidence of its corruption?

More stuff you want to be shown just so that you can 'refute' it, eh?

All right, I'll oblige: The Quest for the Historical Jesus.

Refute away.

a reply to: Astyanax

Lmao!!! Creationists will be the end of Christianity.

As science and technology continue to improve. It'll be harder and harder to cram the bible into the REAL world. The present generation, as a whole, already aren't buying it. Information is too readily available. It's not like it was in the 90's when I grew up even. (I'm 33) then you really had to work to debunk religious claims. Now there are hundreds of institutions who have done it for you and there work is readily available.

I figur we have another generation and a half before there's not enough crazies to be a voting block.

a reply to: ArtemisE

(I'm 33)

A dangerous age.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Don't - just don't. If you try to defend that vile piece of trash I will only laugh in your face.

Edit: I don't toss out anything - I just don't believe that the writings of the insane and drugged of antiquity can be used thousands of years later as anything but grotesque horror stories to scare children.

Drugged and insane once again any evidence or did you just have a bad experience with Christianity ?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Evidence? You believe in an invisible god without evidence and you want me to give you some for anything else?

Ha!

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: waltwillis
Um? not sure where your going with that one boss.

Our timeline may soon be altered if we continue to drift away from God as we have been doing...

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Evidence? You believe in an invisible god without evidence and you want me to give you some for anything else?

Ha!

That's how it works around here. I was in a thread where the authoring member proclaimed that something cannot come from nothing, then went on to explain that nothing created God. LOLWUT?!

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why would I respond to such a ridiculous post. I am not going to spend the time to refute an entire book.

What a gem of a reply.

I'm not really sure how to respond to it. Should I laugh you to scorn for thinking that the theory of evolution and the evidence for it, all of which you hope to refute, is smaller and less complex than a single book?

Or should I condemn you for your provocative demand to be shown the linkage between the first living organism and a human being only so that you can refute it? (Not that I thought you were asking an honest question, or anything.)

Oh, ye generation of hypocrites. The least I can do is give your post a star. After which I may print it out and frame it.

Lol I said refute because I've listened to enough of dawkings lectures and debates to know that I can show anything he says about macro evolution is not conclusive fact. You responded with no information from the book just the book itself. Then you proceed to act as though I am some ignorant fool without knowing anything about me. You have no desire to have an actual conversation you are merely here to troll.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why would I respond to such a ridiculous post. I am not going to spend the time to refute an entire book.

What a gem of a reply.

I'm not really sure how to respond to it. Should I laugh you to scorn for thinking that the theory of evolution and the evidence for it, all of which you hope to refute, is smaller and less complex than a single book?

Or should I condemn you for your provocative demand to be shown the linkage between the first living organism and a human being only so that you can refute it? (Not that I thought you were asking an honest question, or anything.)

Oh, ye generation of hypocrites. The least I can do is give your post a star. After which I may print it out and frame it.

Lol I said refute because I've listened to enough of dawkings lectures and debates to know that I can show anything he says about macro evolution is not conclusive fact. You responded with no information from the book just the book itself. Then you proceed to act as though I am some ignorant fool without knowing anything about me. You have no desire to have an actual conversation you are merely here to troll.

"I've listened to enough of dawkings lectures and debates to know that I can show anything he says about macro evolution is not conclusive fact."

Then by all means, do so. Start a thread, include a video or a transcript, and demonstrate the inaccuracies and errors of his lectures. But until you do share that with us, we can't just take your word for it. I hope you understand.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why would I respond to such a ridiculous post. I am not going to spend the time to refute an entire book.

What a gem of a reply.

I'm not really sure how to respond to it. Should I laugh you to scorn for thinking that the theory of evolution and the evidence for it, all of which you hope to refute, is smaller and less complex than a single book?

Or should I condemn you for your provocative demand to be shown the linkage between the first living organism and a human being only so that you can refute it? (Not that I thought you were asking an honest question, or anything.)

Oh, ye generation of hypocrites. The least I can do is give your post a star. After which I may print it out and frame it.

Lol I said refute because I've listened to enough of dawkings lectures and debates to know that I can show anything he says about macro evolution is not conclusive fact. You responded with no information from the book just the book itself. Then you proceed to act as though I am some ignorant fool without knowing anything about me. You have no desire to have an actual conversation you are merely here to troll.

"I've listened to enough of dawkings lectures and debates to know that I can show anything he says about macro evolution is not conclusive fact."

Then by all means, do so. Start a thread, include a video or a transcript, and demonstrate the inaccuracies and errors of his lectures. But until you do share that with us, we can't just take your word for it. I hope you understand.

Why would I do that ? You all can't even answer the one question in the OP.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why would I respond to such a ridiculous post. I am not going to spend the time to refute an entire book.

What a gem of a reply.

I'm not really sure how to respond to it. Should I laugh you to scorn for thinking that the theory of evolution and the evidence for it, all of which you hope to refute, is smaller and less complex than a single book?

Or should I condemn you for your provocative demand to be shown the linkage between the first living organism and a human being only so that you can refute it? (Not that I thought you were asking an honest question, or anything.)

Oh, ye generation of hypocrites. The least I can do is give your post a star. After which I may print it out and frame it.

Lol I said refute because I've listened to enough of dawkings lectures and debates to know that I can show anything he says about macro evolution is not conclusive fact. You responded with no information from the book just the book itself. Then you proceed to act as though I am some ignorant fool without knowing anything about me. You have no desire to have an actual conversation you are merely here to troll.

"I've listened to enough of dawkings lectures and debates to know that I can show anything he says about macro evolution is not conclusive fact."

Then by all means, do so. Start a thread, include a video or a transcript, and demonstrate the inaccuracies and errors of his lectures. But until you do share that with us, we can't just take your word for it. I hope you understand.

Why would I do that ? You all can't even answer the one question in the OP.

That sounds like an excuse to me. You guys are all the same. You have all the answers, but as soon as we ask for them, you demand that we answer your questions first. And then, our answers are never good enough, which means that, conveniently enough, we never get around to your part of the show. You know, the part where you put up or shut up.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why would I respond to such a ridiculous post. I am not going to spend the time to refute an entire book.

What a gem of a reply.

I'm not really sure how to respond to it. Should I laugh you to scorn for thinking that the theory of evolution and the evidence for it, all of which you hope to refute, is smaller and less complex than a single book?

Or should I condemn you for your provocative demand to be shown the linkage between the first living organism and a human being only so that you can refute it? (Not that I thought you were asking an honest question, or anything.)

Oh, ye generation of hypocrites. The least I can do is give your post a star. After which I may print it out and frame it.

Lol I said refute because I've listened to enough of dawkings lectures and debates to know that I can show anything he says about macro evolution is not conclusive fact. You responded with no information from the book just the book itself. Then you proceed to act as though I am some ignorant fool without knowing anything about me. You have no desire to have an actual conversation you are merely here to troll.

"I've listened to enough of dawkings lectures and debates to know that I can show anything he says about macro evolution is not conclusive fact."

Then by all means, do so. Start a thread, include a video or a transcript, and demonstrate the inaccuracies and errors of his lectures. But until you do share that with us, we can't just take your word for it. I hope you understand.

Why would I do that ? You all can't even answer the one question in the OP.

That sounds like an excuse to me. You guys are all the same. You have all the answers, but as soon as we ask for them, you demand that we answer your questions first. And then, our answers are never good enough, which means that, conveniently enough, we never get around to your part of the show. You know, the part where you put up or shut up. [/quote
An excuse? Well this thread asked one question and what do have ? Seven pages of poorly attempted straw man arguments. Rather than just answer the question and explain how species can achieve those types of morphological changes genetically and with the process of natural selection working against them until they are complete. Rather than post about the topic everyone juts states something speculative then they just throw out ad hominem attacks. Or they just mention whole books rather than say something specific because they don't actually know what to say.

edit on 16-6-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: not sure why it qouted every thing

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm sure there's a thread on it somewhere. have you tried looking it up?

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Lol yes and there isn't one known, and therefore macro-evolution is not fact. Thats my point. I asked people who think macroevolution is cold hard fact could find out for themselves that its lacking loads of evidence. It is missing more evidence than it has. Therefore, those who say macro-evolution is fact take that statement on faith rather than science. If you are actually honest, the truth about macro-evolution is we do not yet know. Could it be true? Yes. Would that mean the Christian God couldn't exist? No. I have no reason to be bias when it comes to Evolution it does nothing to strengthen or weaken the claims of my world view. Do I believe it is the most likely scenario for describing the process God or nature used to create life. No. Why? Well I hate to be cliche but evolution doesn't account for morality nor does it make logical sense based on the argument from Reason.(obviously not the only reason).

One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.

C.S. Lewis

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

May I ask what a christian's concern with facts is?