The Bible

[g_bambino]

Do you see atoms with your naked eyes?

Your question asks for an irrelevancy. Atoms are not invisible.

Your rebutts are missing the point.

Quite the opposite, dear, as evidenced by your squirming. Your entire premise is based on assumptions and personal interpretations. Weak.

[GostHacked]

If you really analyze it:

rejecting Creation - which I mean to be that everything was/is created by God - means rejecting a Creator. That's why atheists don't accept Intelligent Design. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with "evidences" or "science."

How about a lack of evidence. All you have is one book, science has about 150 years to build on evolution, and so far, the 'theory' as you like to call it, has been validated because no one can seem to bring anything forth to contradict evolution. Science has done what it could to refute and prove evolution wrong, that is how you do science. But I don't expect you to have any faith in that.

Don't forget, Intelligent Design does not reject evolution outright....but they don't require it!

So you accept evolution as fact, good.

They want to follow the scientific evidences.

Creationism and god cannot be validated nor nullified by science.

NEO-DARWINIST's position, on the other hand, is very narrow-minded! They've placed themselves in a small box, unwilling to step out and instead, they try to fit or mould everything to their inconclusive "conclusion."

How about stepping outside that box called The Bible?

[GostHacked]

Answer this:

Do you see atoms with your naked eyes?

Can you see God with your naked eye? Or should I put on my Biblical Glasses.

[Saipan]

Your question asks for an irrelevancy. Atoms are not invisible.

And eyes are not the only senses.

[CANADIEN]

How about a lack of evidence. All you have is one book, science has about 150 years to build on evolution, and so far, the 'theory' as you like to call it, has been validated because no one can seem to bring anything forth to contradict evolution. Science has done what it could to refute and prove evolution wrong, that is how you do science. But I don't expect you to have any faith in that.

Correction. She has her misunderstanding of the Book. I have the Book, and there is nothing i have found in there that causes me to reject evolution as the way HE has created.

So you accept evolution as fact, good.

Creationism and god cannot be validated nor nullified by science.

How about stepping outside that box called The Bible?

Correction: the box is not the Bible; it' s the incapacity to understand it, to understand science, and to accept science that is too inconvénient.

Edited September 8, 2011 by CANADIEN

[betsy]

And here we go... The merger of betsy's "logic" and the tenets of the Creationism/Intelligent Deisgn movement in all its glorious intellectual dishonesty.

Equating, on purpose, evolution science with neo-Darwinism.

Hiting that since atheists reject their pseudo-science, any Christian which recognizes evolution is in not really a Christian at all - while stragically backtracking from the purposeful equation of evolution science with neo-Darwinism.

But my favorite part is the claim that there is no rejection of evolution outright. No, no rejection - only the constant claims that evolution has been proved to be false, the claims that evolution is just a theory (showing a misunderstanding of what is a scientific theory), the claim of a (non-existing) crisis in the scientifc community. Words speak louder than words in this case.

PS: You may want to Google theistic evolution

There is no dishonesty on my part.

I've been stating flatly throughout that when I talk about evolution - I'm talking about Neo-Darwinism.

It is you who seems to insist in twisting my words around. Or you don't really read what I say.

Furthermore, which part of this consistently stated views are so hard to understand?

Christians believe in evolution. Micro-evolution.

Science is a tool by God to reveal to us what He wants us to know, at His own time and convenience, according to His plan.

(and since science is considered as a tool by and a gift from God the following is therefore logical)

Christians can follow where the scientific evidences lead.

My views can shift, depending on future discoveries (given Noah's Ark as an example).

The explanations about Intelligent Designers position - their belief.

So, who's actually being dishonest here?

If you insist to twist my words around, then why should I bother with you? You're trying to paint me to be what I'm actually not. Like some - perhaps including you - had tried to paint me as a "young earther."

Not very unlike as to how you cleverly try to do the same to the Bible, and at the same time you claim to be its "protector."

There is no discussion with someone who can twist and distort stated views and statements. That's like arguing with a liar.

And yes, Neo-Darwinist evolution is dead! That's the only conclusion that can be drawn. Your best argument has been shotgunned.

The only reasons it's still around is due to our secularist society.

I think there is more to the actions of learned people who decided to jump ship to Intelligent Design than listening to some opinion here that says "nay"....after all, as you can see in this forum, with most of those argumentative nay-sayers, we're not actually having a rational discussion. The aim is not to rationalize it seems....it's now more into how words can be twisted around.

Edited September 9, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

There is no dishonesty on my part.

I've been stating flatly throughout that when I talk about evolution - I'm talking about Neo-Darwinism.

If neo-darwinism is the particular aspect of evolution you do not agree with, then why don't you simply use the word neo-darwinism? But here, I will make it easy for you:

Science has demonstrated that life on thi planet has changed overtime through evolution, including macro-evolution (which, unlike what you would have us believe, is not synonymous with . Do you acknowledge that, yes or no?

It is you who seems to insist in twisting my words around. Or you don't really read what I say.

Furthermore, which part of this consistently stated views are so hard to understand?

What part of the fact that, as a CHRISTIAN, I do not buy the deception of the Creationist movement is difficult to understand? (notice, by the way, that after putting myself in a position where what I was targetting was unclear, I am now using the term "Creationist movement" so nobody, except you apparently, can claim that I reject the existence of the Creating god).

Christians believe in evolution. Micro-evolution.

And Christians who understand science except evolution. Period. Up to the point when some claims that it proves the non-existence fo god, which is not even a scientific proposition to start with.

Science is a tool by God to reveal to us what He wants us to know, at His own time and convenience, according to His plan.

And that includes evolution, including micro-evolution.

(and since science is considered as a tool by and a gift from God the following is therefore logical)

Christians can follow where the scientific evidences lead.

Unless it leads to macro-evolution. Which it does.

My views can shift, depending on future discoveries (given Noah's Ark as an example).

As a Christian, mine can and does too. For example, I once thought that indeed, Man (as in human beings) was created separetly from vegetal and animal lifes, based on Genesis. Until it became evident that evolution, micro AND macro is the way God created.

So why don't you post scientifc evidence that disproves macro-evolution. Not the pathetic and laughable circus of so called "facts" that allegedly show that science proves the Bible when the Bible doesn't actually talks about what you claim it does. I mean I want evidence that the notion all life forms were created essentially as they are today is a valid scientifc theory, though actual experiments conducted by scientists, fossil evidence, whatever... SCIENTIFC evidence.

So, who's actually being dishonest here?

If you insist to twist my words around, then why should I bother with you? You're trying to paint me to be what I'm not. Not very unlike as to how you cleverly try to do the same to the Bible, and at the same time you claim to be its "protector."

There is no discussion with someone who can twist and distort stated views and statements. That's like arguing with a liar.

So says the person who has called me an atheist. Twisted my words in an attempt to have people believe that I do not believe that God created the Universe. The person who keeps insisting on misreading the actual words of the Bible. The person who has actually lied by claiming I was not stating what my faith is.

[CANADIEN]

And yes, Neo-Darwinist evolution is dead! That's the only conclusion that can be drawn. Your best argument has been shotgunned.

I would be curoious to know how often I have used the term neo-darwinism.

I would also be curious to know what your definition of neo-darwinism is. Here the definition from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Theory of evolution that represents a synthesis of Charles Darwin’s theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics. The term was first used after 1896 to describe the theories of August Weismann (1834–1914), who asserted that his germ-plasm theory made impossible the inheritance of acquired characteristics and supported natural selection as the only major process that would account for biological evolution.

I suspect that you're confusing neo-Darwinism with the notion entertained by some scientists, who really should stick to science, that evolution disproves the existence of God.

Natural selection has been demonstrated by science. To me, knowing through my FAITH (you know, the word you hesitate to use) that it is part of God's creation gives me even more reason to believe in Him an worship Him..

I think there is more to the actions of learned people who decided to jump ship to Intelligent Design than listening to some opinion here that says "nay"....

If we are talking about theose nice fellows at the Centre for Science and Culture or the Discovery Institute and their feloow members of the Intelligent Design/Creationist movement, their actions, their actions say a lot indeed. Fudging academic credentials, fabricating a so-called scientific controversy, repeating at nauseum that evolution is "just a theory" (as learned scieintists, they don't know what the word theory means in science?).

after all, as you can see in this forum, with most of those argumentative nay-sayers, we're not actually having a rational discussion. The aim is not to rationalize it seems....it's now more into how words can be twisted around.

MOST nay-sayers? I see only one.

Edited September 9, 2011 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

Christians can follow where the scientific evidences lead.

They can. But other Christians, such as yourself, choose to invent, using assumption and misrepresentation, their own path between science and their faith and follow it. The former are honest, the latter are not.

[betsy]

If neo-darwinism is the particular aspect of evolution you do not agree with, then why don't you simply use the word neo-darwinism?

I had stated it numerous times. I'm arguing with practically the same people here - so I don't need to specify each and every time. In fact, here is a very clear statement of view. My response to Pinko.

Betsy:

I have been following the discussion here and I am wondering if you will inform me whether you believe in the scientific method. Secondly may I please be advised when it is you believe the earth first originated. Do you believe in the virgin birth?

As you are aware from the posts here there is some scepticism from those with a functioning brain that the belief system you embrace is a rational one.

For the record I am an atheist.

Betsy:

I'm not a new-earth believer. But I don't believe the geological evidence refutes the Biblical outline of history. That doesn't mean I look at it metaphorically or allegorically.

Yes I believe in the Virgin Birth, that goes without saying I am a Christian. Anyone professing to be a christian who don't believe in the Virgin Birth, or the Resurrection is not a Christian.

Of course there's scepticism, otherwise no one will be an agnostic

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17897&st=60

Coming from you....on the same token, what took you so long to straighten the record and specifically explain that you are a Christian???

Especially when the person you're debating with - me! - had been asking you pointedly to be specific with your position. That should be clear to you that obviously I need some clarification!

You kept repeating, "well, I already said it before....!"

Why would I waste my breath asking you repeatedly if I know?? Somethings in your previous posts didn't tally to give the impression that you are a Christian! I even mistook you to be not only an atheist, but a new atheist at that!

All you did in your previous posts was quibble about your belief. Stating that, you've "got your faith in God," is not exactly the same as admitting you are a Christian!

You could be referring to the god Tuktoobuktoo for all I know.

But here, I will make it easy for you:

Science has demonstrated that life on thi planet has changed overtime through evolution, including macro-evolution (which, unlike what you would have us believe, is not synonymous with . Do you acknowledge that, yes or no?

Demonstrated??? Not macro-evolution! You've gotta be kidding me!

What part of the fact that, as a CHRISTIAN, I do not buy the deception of the Creationist movement is difficult to understand?

The fact that it is still debatable whether you are indeed a christian or not! Trying to discredit the Bible - to the point of being quite obtuse about it - is really one hard evidence against you.

Then, there's also the fact that you seem to be rooting for atheistic beliefs while you're trying to downplay the significance of the Bible. Check these previous posts:

I beliee in God, but nice try. And nice try deforming the view point of the atheists. They don't say that there was nothing, or something, beofre the Big BVang, but rather that there is no answer yet to this question - and that if there was something it was not God.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17897&st=30

Take note how you gave atheists some justification or excuse: "They don't say that there was nothing, or something, beofre the Big BVang, but rather that there is no answer yet to this question -"

Actually (kicking myself for not remembering my litterary genres right), a better term would be an allegory - a way to describe a reality known through faith, namely, that the Universe is from God, in terms that were understandable. Science will never prove or disprove the existence of God, but it has proven that things did not occur the way described in Genesis.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17897&st=45

And yet you're not prepared to do the same for the Bible, by being confident in saying:

"Science will never prove or disprove the existence of God, but it has proven that things did not occur the way described in Genesis."

Who told you science will never prove the existence of God? How can you be so sure about that?

Shouldn't you give the same excuse you've given the atheists - that there is no answer yet?

Why would you not only question my Bible facts, but ridicule and downright do your darndest debunking them - that science had proven or supported them - and yet you so readily embrace it for facts that science has proven things did not occur the way they did in Genesis?

Your statements are not consistent with your professed christian faith.

(notice, by the way, that after putting myself in a position where what I was targetting was unclear, I am now using the term "Creationist movement" so nobody, except you apparently, can claim that I reject the existence of the Creating god).

Your own unclear and confusing previous statements (especially your views about Bible and science) - plus the fact that you were not willing to come right out into the open and declare yourself a Christian - is the reason why you've been mistaken for a non-Christian.

Do not blame me for that!

And Christians who understand science except evolution. Period. Up to the point when some claims that it proves the non-existence fo god, which is not even a scientific proposition to start with.

EHHH?

EHHHHH?

I'm lost here.....my mind is reeling. What are you actually saying?

In simple English please.

Who's claiming to prove the non-existence of God??

And that includes evolution, including micro-evolution.

(and since science is considered as a tool by and a gift from God the following is therefore logical)

Unless it leads to macro-evolution. Which it does.

But no, the evidence doesn't lead to macro-evolution.

As a Christian, mine can and does too. For example, I once thought that indeed, Man (as in human beings) was created separetly from vegetal and animal lifes, based on Genesis. Until it became evident that evolution, micro AND macro is the way God created.

Well that's what you think.

I also happen to overhear one of my Christian children shouting to the sky, "Thank you MOTHER NATURE for the sun!" Of course I didn't let that pass and asked, "whoa! What do you mean mother nature? Who created nature?" After some quizzing it turned out he learned that from mommy and daddy! These are Christian folks - and I don't doubt them. But like so many Christians who got immersed into secularism - they end up spouting things, the very same things, that earned God's wrath in the the Old Testament! We're not even aware of it.

I was like that too....until I started reading the Bible, and found out what exactly are the do's and don'ts.

Why do you think God forbade the Jews - in the OT - to marry and intermigle among the heathens?

So why don't you post scientifc evidence that disproves macro-evolution.

I gave the latest ones. You ignored them.

Not the pathetic and laughable circus of so called "facts" that allegedly show that science proves the Bible when the Bible doesn't actually talks about what you claim it does.

I find it astonishing that you keep discrediting and denying the Bible.....and yet you accept Neo-Darwinism without any qualms - even with no clear evidence to prove with, what more despite evidences that actually kills it!

I mean I want evidence that the notion all life forms were created essentially as they are today is a valid scientifc theory, though actual experiments conducted by scientists, fossil evidence, whatever... SCIENTIFC evidence.

Since you believe Neo-Darwinism, why don't you provide the evidence for it - the irrefutable proof of common ancestry? C'mon. Let's hear it!

Can you provide the url for your sources? I don't want simply stating where it came from, like the ones you gave above. I want to be able to verify for myself!

So says the person who has called me an atheist. Twisted my words in an attempt to have people believe that I do not believe that God created the Universe. The person who keeps insisting on misreading the actual words of the Bible. The person who has actually lied by claiming I was not stating what my faith is.

So says the person who couldn't bring himself to come right out readily to identify himself as a Christian. Like as if admittance is too painful to do - like a hard lump one can't swallow.

I may have said that I follow where scientific evidences lead me - but let me be clear that scientific evidences is not generally required.

Like, I firmly believe in the death and Resurrection of Christ. Even though there is no scientific proof of it. I'd like to ask you:

Do you? Do you believe in the Virgin birth, and death and Resurrection of Christ?

Or do you need science to prove or disprove them?

Edited September 10, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

I had stated it numerous times. I'm arguing with practically the same people here - so I don't need to specify each and every time. In fact, here is a very clear statement of view.

I was referring to your use of the term evolution when, allegedly, all you mean is neo-darwinism

Coming from you....on the same token, what took you so long to straighten the record and specifically explain that you are a Christian???

Especially when the person you're debating with - me! - had been asking you pointedly to be specific with your position. That should be clear to you that obviously I need some clarification!

You kept repeating, "well, I already said it before....!"

Why would I waste my breath asking you repeatedly if I know?? Somethings in your previous posts didn't tally to give the impression that you are a Christian! I even mistook you to be not only an atheist, but a new atheist at that!

All you did in your previous posts was quibble about your belief. Stating that, you've "got your faith in God," is not exactly the same as admitting you are a Christian!

You could be referring to the god Tuktoobuktoo for all I know.

You claim that I have not stated clearly, times and times again, that I am a Christian is a lie.

The fact that it is still debatable whether you are indeed a christian or not! Trying to discredit the Bible - to the point of being quite obtuse about it - is really one hard evidence against you.

The claim that I am discrediting the Bible. Another lie.

Then, there's also the fact that you seem to be rooting for atheistic beliefs while you're trying to downplay the significance of the Bible. Check these previous posts:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17897&st=30

Take note how you gave atheists some justification or excuse: "They don't say that there was nothing, or something, beofre the Big BVang, but rather that there is no answer yet to this question -"

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17897&st=45

This is not a defense or an excuse of anyone, but a clarification following one of your usual distortion of facts. Claiming otherwise is another lie.

Your own unclear and confusing previous statements (especially your views about Bible and science) - plus the fact that you were not willing to come right out into the open and declare yourself a Christian - is the reason why you've been mistaken for a non-Christian.

The claim that me views on the Bible and science are not clear is another lie.

I'm lost here.....

This has been evident fora long time now.

I find it astonishing that you keep discrediting and denying the Bible...

This claim is another lie.

So says the person who couldn't bring himself to come right out readily to identify himself as a Christian.

This claim is another lie.

[

Do you? Do you believe in the Virgin birth, and death and Resurrection of Christ? [/b][/size]

You KNOW from my past statements that I believe in what the Creed of the Apostles says. Any claim that you don't already know that I believe in the Virgin birth and the death and Resurection of Christis another lie.

Or do you need science to prove or disprove them?

In the same post, you attack me because I know science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God, then ask me if I need science to prove or disprouve what is in the Creed of the Apostle. The claim that you do not already know is a lie.

Edited September 10, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Who told you science will never prove the existence of God? How can you be so sure about that?

Shouldn't you give the same excuse you've given the atheists - that there is no answer yet?

Nobody told me, although most scientists, including Christian scientists, know it as well. It stems from the knowledge that God IS (not merely exists, but IS) outside of His Creation, that is outside of time, space, ernergy, the physical Universe (except of course through His Son, Jesus-Christ, the Word made flesh). The object of science is the studying of the physical Universe. Therefore, logically, it cannot prove or disprove who IS outside of the physical universe.

Scientists can indeed find God as a result of their science world. What it takes though is faith (the word one really have to look hard to find in your postings). The existence of God, or to be more accurate His BEING, is not testable. Quite frankly, I find the notion it can quite reducing - reducing to the level of a component of His own Creation. That idea may be compatible with some other religions, but not with the Christian faith.

I gave the latest ones. You ignored them.

I am not talking about the pronouncements of your Prophet Dr. Craig, or your constant misreading of the Bible. I am talking about information about ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC experimentation and testings.

you accept Neo-Darwinism without any qualms - even with no clear evidence to prove with, what more despite evidences that actually kills it!

Since you believe Neo-Darwinism, why don't you provide the evidence for it - the irrefutable proof of common ancestry? C'mon. Let's hear it!

So... common ancestry... that's your definition of neon-Darwinism. Interesting that it has nothing to do with the definition given in the Encyclopedia Britannica (you can search it by yourself, don't you?). And that's a more learned source than you or me.

BTW, the form of knowledge I have of common descent is not one gained through faith (that word you hesitate to use), but one gained by science (which comes from God when it suits you, and is to be rejected when it suits you). If I had to find a link to an online peer review article to even one percent of the scieitifc discoveries and tests that confirm the validity of the common descent theory, I'd spend the next 10 years doing just that.

But let's give just 3 examples:

- shared genetic code: in a 1997 experiment, a human gene was inserted into the cells of a yeast, and it worked link

- speciation: ever heard of the London Underground Mosquito? link

- computation and mathematical iterations: such as in studies conducted with the Aveda computer program link

Edited September 10, 2011 by CANADIEN

[kimmy]

We've dealt with Lot's wife. Like I asked: what does it mean that she turned into a pillar of salt? Did she turn completely into salt? Half-salt? Was she encased in salt?

You're implying about the "creation" of salt? And I surmised, have you experienced living near salt water? Experienced how at the end of the day, you can feel fine grits of salt on your skin and hair?

Anyhow....we'll never find out about her. If that part of Genesis is indeed literal...she's melted a long time ago!

Either the salt was created spontaneously (which "a finished creation" says wouldn't happen), or the salt was brought from the surrounding area (which requires energy) or she wasn't really turned into a pillar of salt at all.

Supposing that were the case, then matter was not spontaneously created

"Supposing".....another word for, if.

You're objecting to your own supposition??

There's 3 possibilities:

(1) God created the salt spontaneously

(2) the salt was brought from the surrounding area

(3) it didn't really happen the way the Bible says (the "pillar of salt" is allegorical or the whole thing made up.)

You objected to case one and offered supposition #2 as a response. We're dealing with that right now.

However, gathering salt molecules from miles around to that specific location and then either infusing it into her body or crystalizing it around her would require an immense amount of energy. Your fact "a finished creation" specifies that neither matter nor energy can be created. So where did the energy to turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt come from?

Even if it were true, how do you know that God required an "immense amount of energy" to gather the salt molecules from miles around?

Even on a hot day at 100% humidity, a cubic meter of air only holds about 25 grams of water. And when salt water evaporates, most of the salt is left behind (how did they get salt back in those days? They put salt water into a pool, let it evaporate, and the salt was left behind.) There's less than a gram of salt in a cubic meter of sea air. So to get 100kg of salt to Lot's wife's location, God would have had to have harvest that salt from a volume of over 100,000 cubic meters of air and give it energy to accelerate it to location. Bringing the salt there required energy. To say nothing of the hard part of the job, which is either building a crystal around her or replacing the molecules of her body with salt.

So, the whole exercise required energy, but "a finished creation" says that wouldn't happen. So we're left

Therefore, you're contradicting "a finished creation."

No, I'm accepting "a finished creation" (as you defined it-- matter and energy are no longer being created) and using it to contradict other parts of the Bible.

No. You're claiming the Bible contradicts the facts by using suppositions.

Lot's wife. Noah's ark. Mt. Ararat. Eve.

Kimmy....Kimmy....Kimmy...read your statement again:

The goal was to illustrate that if God is constrained by that rule --

See that boldened, "IF?"

They're all suppositions!

You: "A finished cration" is a fact!

Me: If that's true...

You: That's a supposition!

You can't dismiss as supposition an argument that follows from me accepting your initial premise! To do so would be to dispute your own premise.

Furthermore, to suggest that God - who's supposed to be the supreme Being and Creator of all things - to be "constrained"....

You're the one insisting that "a finished creation" is a fact. That means God is no longer creating matter or energy. By definition, that's a constraint. Your insistence that God no longer creates matter or energy is a limitation on God's ability. Whether that is by his own choice is irrelevant to the discussion: it's a constraint that limits the ability of Christians to explain many of the situations that are described in the Bible by saying "God did it."

There's been a lot of surmising. I also said that perhaps the animals were eggs and babies so they could fit in the ark! That's a supposition! You think you're the only ones allowed to give suppositions?

What? I never even started with the absurdity of fitting all the kinds of animals onto a 300 cubit boat.

My argument was based on the simple fact that there's simply not enough water in the entire earth to float a boat to the top of the mountains of Ararat.

You proposed "maybe it was a regional flood!" but a regional flood couldn't possibly put a boat on top of the tallest mountains in that region. It's simply impossible.

You find it "hollow" because since you know I'm a Christian....you've got me neatly "profiled" in your mind?

It's because you condemn others for suggesting things may be allegorical, then when it's convenient to your own beliefs, you're willing to accept other things as allegory. How did you become the authority on which parts are literal and which aren't?

No. Not everything is allegorical! Like I said, some are also literal.

And apparently you're the one who gets to decide which.

I've been upfront saying that my views may change, depending on future discoveries! Like in Noah's Ark! Right now I think it's allegorical. Hey, who knows maybe tomorrow they'll find evidence that it's not, after all, allegorical!

I go where the evidences lead. I've been saying all along, I believe that science is a tool of God.

You've been promoting the idea that science proves the Bible to be true... up until we get to portions of the Bible that science proves couldn't have happened that way, at which point we get "well, that's just allegory".

Anyway, what's wrong with having Dr Craig to support my arguments?

It's because you, who've been calling others lemmings who can't think for themselves, are actually the most lemming like of all. Your arguments all appear to come from some authority you admire or some intelligent design website that concocts all these arguments for you.

You don't have any problems believing and spitting out the views of Dawkins, right?

Well, my Dr Craig whomps your Mr. Dawkins. That is if he can find Dawkins at all!

He's not "My Mr Dawkins". I don't think I've ever cited Dawkins on this forum. I've never spit out anything he says. I don't think I would have even heard of Dawkins if it weren't for you and your many, many posts about him. He's not a leader or a "pope" or a priest to me. He's some guy who is out there who doesn't believe in god either.

You seem to think that if you can just "beat" Dawkins, you will win the war against atheism and everybody will come back to Jesus. But that's not the case. Many of us were never with Jesus in the first place. We didn't become atheists because some English guy wrote some books. Some of us are atheists because we were never converted. Others are atheists because they ceased to believe, and few of those need any persuasion from Dawkins to make that decision. Maybe instead of worrying about Richard Dawkins, you should worry about figuring out why so many people decide that the church just isn't relevant to them anymore.

-k

[betsy]

Here goes the empress insisting that her fully-clothed opponent puts clothes on, while ignoring that she is the one who has no clothes on.

PS: Not visible with the naked eyes is not the same as invisible.

To people in ancient time - before science discovered atoms - not visible with the naked eyes is exactly the same as being "invisible!" They don't know that atoms exist!

That alone adds weight to the significance of the Biblical statement. Like I said, they must be wondering what on earth they meant when they wrote that, or other similar statements that must've sounded like riddles or puzzles to them!

In fact, that's the whole point!

The Bible is not trying to prove science. However, after thousands of years, it turned out science supports the Bible!

Edited September 13, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Correction. She has her misunderstanding of the Book. I have the Book, and there is nothing i have found in there that causes me to reject evolution as the way HE has created.

Correction. You misunderstand. It is science that's going against Neo-Darwinist evolution.

The newer details were clearly explained in Creation, Video Debates and Interviews. The topic Darwin - although old topic now - still holds some points.

Correction: the box is not the Bible; it' s the incapacity to understand it, to understand science, and to accept science that is too inconvénient.

Correction. The box is Neo-Darwinism.

Atheists has no choice but to try to cling to it. They don't have the option of entertaining the possibility of Intelligent Design. To do so would mean that they're no longer atheists. To accept the possibility of a Creator means they've become agnostics.

Edited September 13, 2011 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

You: "A finished cration" is a fact!

Me: If that's true...

You: That's a supposition!

Thank you, Kimmy. That was hilarious.

[betsy]

I would be curoious to know how often I have used the term neo-darwinism.

I would also be curious to know what your definition of neo-darwinism is. Here the definition from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

and here's a quote from:

We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain. I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it’s good, we know it is bad, but because there isn’t any other. Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation …

–Professor Jerome Lejeune, in a lecture given in Paris

on March 17, 1985, translated by Peter Wilders

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution

That was stated in 1985. Afetr a century or so..... ...still nothing new at present time, except that there's now more aggressive and loud denunciation of evolution. And some atheists have abandoned ship and either converted to Christianity or become Deist.

Of course, there's also Dawkins doing the chicken dance and had gone hiding.

I suspect that you're confusing neo-Darwinism with the notion entertained by some scientists, who really should stick to science, that evolution disproves the existence of God.

Atheists cling to Neo-Darwinism, because to them it does not require a Creator. Atheists scientists try their best to make up for lack of evidences to evolution by hypothesising, making unsubstantiated claims and to some, doing downright fraud, just so they can prop up what's tantamounting to be a hoax.

Natural selection has been demonstrated by science. To me, knowing through my FAITH (you know, the word you hesitate to use) that it is part of God's creation gives me even more reason to believe in Him an worship Him.

I'm not contesting natural selection.

In fact, if I'm not mistaken - are you ready for this? -

there seems to be an indication of natural selection (breeding) somewhere in the Old Testament.

Let me think where I've seen that....or if I'm confusing it with something else.

Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits—a concept that creationists and evolutionists agree on.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution

Why did you even have to bring up natural selection? You're all over the place.

If we are talking about theose nice fellows at the Centre for Science and Culture or the Discovery Institute and their feloow members of the Intelligent Design/Creationist movement, their actions, their actions say a lot indeed. Fudging academic credentials,fabricating a so-called scientific controversy, repeating at nauseum that evolution is "just a theory" (as learned scieintists, they don't know what the word theory means in science?).

So why don't you rebutt the articles and sources I've posted? Especially the last one about evolution's best argument getting torpedoed.

The valiant yet feeble attempt to rebutt that article got them trying to resuscitate the 29 so-called evidences of Theobold - which btw, also got torpedoed.

Speaking of dishonest means....you don't want to go there. What about the Fundamentalist Evolutionist Preacher - Dawkins -_ and his unsubstantiated claims that another evolutionist, Lewontin, exposed? These are all in those topics mentioned above.

Fudging academic credentials, fabricating a so-called scientific controversy,

These are serious accusations. Support your claims. Cite.

Edited September 13, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

So... common ancestry... that's your definition of neon-Darwinism. Interesting that it has nothing to do with the definition given in the Encyclopedia Britannica (you can search it by yourself, don't you?). And that's a more learned source than you or me.

Why, isn't common ancestry our bone of contention???

[betsy]

I was referring to your use of the term evolution when, allegedly, all you mean is neo-darwinism

You claim that I have not stated clearly, times and times again, that I am a Christian is a lie.

The claim that I am discrediting the Bible. Another lie.

This is not a defense or an excuse of anyone, but a clarification following one of your usual distortion of facts. Claiming otherwise is another lie.

The claim that me views on the Bible and science are not clear is another lie.

This has been evident fora long time now.

This claim is another lie.

This claim is another lie.

You KNOW from my past statements that I believe in what the Creed of the Apostles says. Any claim that you don't already know that I believe in the Virgin birth and the death and Resurection of Christis another lie.

In the same post, you attack me because I know science cannot prove the existence or non-existence of God, then ask me if I need science to prove or disprouve what is in the Creed of the Apostle. The claim that you do not already know is a lie.

Your responses to all our debates speak fro themselves.

AND, that's what happens when you stubbornly quibble and despite your opponent's request, you wouldn't state clearly where you stand. See what happens?

Next time, don't hesitate to say that you are a Christian.

Just like the song from Jesus Culture:

SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS!

Edited September 13, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

To people in ancient time - before science discovered atoms - not visible with the naked eyes is exactly the same as being "invisible!" They don't know that atoms exist!

That alone adds weight to the significance of the Biblical statement. Like I said, they must be wondering what on earth they meant when they wrote that, or other similar statements that must've sounded like riddles or puzzles to them!

In fact, that's the whole point!

The Bible is not trying to prove science. However, after thousands of years, it turned out science supports the Bible!

You still do not get the FACT that St. Paul was NOT talking about atoms, do you?

According to your (non-scientific theory), he might have been talking about Uranus and Neptune, wormholes, or even the secret of the Caramilk.

Edited September 13, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Correction. You misunderstand. It is science that's going against Neo-Darwinist evolution.

The newer details were clearly explained in Creation, Video Debates and Interviews. The topic Darwin - although old topic now - still holds some points.

Correction. You have convinced yourself that's the case. I am still waiting for examples of SCIENTIFIC research that debunks what you call neo-darwinist evolution. As opposed to your misreading of the Bible.

Correction. The box is Neo-Darwinism.

Atheists has no choice but to try to cling to it. They don't have the option of entertaining the possibility of Intelligent Design. To do so would mean that they're no longer atheists. To accept the possibility of a Creator means they've become agnostics.

Atheists also clings to the FACT that 1 = 1 = 2. Guess we need new maths, right?

Quite frankly, I don't give a darn as to what atheists think of evolution. Whatever they think about it doesn't change the fact it is, until you or anyone can show evidence to the contrary (which is to say the least highly doubtful), evolutuion remains the best explanation as to how GOD DID IT.

Edited September 13, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

and here's a quote from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/natural-selection-vs-evolution

That was stated in 1985. Afetr a century or so..... ...still nothing new at present time, except that there's now more aggressive and loud denunciation of evolution. And some atheists have abandoned ship and either converted to Christianity or become Deist.

Still a voice from one of the few "scientists" who keep refusing to see what is evident.

I'm not contesting natural selection.

You are not contesting one of the key features of Darwin's theory and of evolution theory? Really, and I mean really, do you knw what you are talking about?

Why did you even have to bring up natural selection? You're all over the place.

You have a problem with me talking about a key component of the evolution theory? Could it be because you are not contesting it? You are laughable.

Speaking of dishonest means....you don't want to go there. What about the Fundamentalist Evolutionist Preacher - Dawkins -_ and his unsubstantiated claims that another evolutionist, Lewontin, exposed? These are all in those topics mentioned above.

What Dawkins thinks is not the issue here. it is the FACT that evolution is an evidenced scientific theory. doesn't science come from God?

These are serious accusations. Support your claims. Cite. [/size]

I usually try to avoid wuoing from wikipedia, but here's an article about the infamous "Scientific Dissent from neo-darwinism" link.

A few highlights:

For example, if someone was trained at a more prestigious institution than the one they are presently affiliated with, the school they graduated from will more often be listed, without the distinction being made clear in the list. This is contrary to standard academic and professional practice and, according to Forrest and Branch, is deliberately misleading.[1]

For example, the institutions listed for Raymond G. Bohlin, Fazale Rana, and Jonathan Wells, were the University of Texas at Dallas, Ohio University, and the University of California, Berkeley respectively, the schools from which they obtained their Ph.D. degrees. However, their present affiliations are quite different: Probe Ministries for Bohlin, the Reasons to Believe Ministry for Rana, and the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture for Wells. Many of those who have signed the list are not currently active scientists, and some have never worked as scientists. Also, if a signatory was previously the head of a department or the president of an institute, their past and most prestigious position will be listed, not their current position.[1]

At least one signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism has abandoned the list, saying he felt misled. Robert C. Davidson, a Christian, scientist, doctor, and retired nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school said after having signed he was shocked when he discovered that the Discovery Institute was calling evolution a "theory in crisis". "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," said Davidson. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it. ... When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best. ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."[49]

And the claims that there is a controversy or that evolution is a theory in crisis are drowned by the voices of all those scientific organizations that have made it clear that evolution is a bona fide scientific theory.

Edited September 13, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Your responses to all our debates speak fro themselves.

AND, that's what happens when you stubbornly quibble and despite your opponent's request, you wouldn't state clearly where you stand. See what happens?

Next time, don't hesitate to say that you are a Christian.

Just like the song from Jesus Culture:

SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS!

Keep lying about me. It's so entartaining.

[cybercoma]

the secret of the Caramilk.

Sweet caramel divinity!

[cybercoma]

On a side note, not all atheists believe in evolution.