RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants.

RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

essentialsaltes -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/13/2008 5:05:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud If we assume and teach as a society that science is the primary means by which we ascertain truth... Science only addresses certain kinds of truth about the natural world. as you say yourself, "Science is a way of looking at reality. Presumably, it is a way of accurately looking at the reality of the natural world." Science doesn't claim knowledge of or teach anything about the things outside its sphere of expertise.

gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/13/2008 5:38:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud You are the one who constrains your beliefs to the latest notions of science, not me. I don’t have to find God in evolution because I am afraid to question it. More assumptions. You assume what I believe. You assume I constrain my beliefs to the latest notions of science. You assume you do not---though I would say you are more guilty of that than I am. You assume I find God in evolution. I don't--not specifically anyway. I find God in all of creation, and it happens that includes evolution, just like it includes galaxies and snowflakes. You assume I am afraid to question evolution. I am not. I have questioned it and found it makes sense of the evidence, but I am quite prepared to ditch it if and when a better theory is available. What I will not renounce is faith in my creator and saviour. quote: quote: Yes, science is a way of looking at the reality of the natural world. I assume you agree that within the limitations of his time, Newton did that, building on the work of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. Do you think he had to constrain the truth of scripture to accept the new model of the universe? If not, why not? It’s like you aren’t even responding to points made anymore; I am arguing that we should never constrain the truth of Scripture to the current model of the universe. Do you agree or not? Yes, I know what you are saying we should never do. Now would you say that Newton is a good example of not constraining the truth of scripture to a new scientific model? Or did he violate your principle? quote: It is irrelevant how many scientists conflate atheism and science. Good, so can you now stop dredging them up all the time? After all they are irrelevant. quote: The point is, we don’t subject revealed Scripture, which is eternally true to ever-changing notions of the universe as indicated by the latest science. I hear people say this, but they seldom practice it. Most unknowingly read modern science into scripture without a second thought. When you tell them that a firmament is not outer space they are incredulous. Of course, whether the sky is a solid dome close enough to be held up by mountains (or reached by a tower) or an unimaginably large expanse between far-flung galaxies has little to do with the eternal truths of scripture. But if you want to reach unbelievers who take far-flung galaxies as part of reality, you won't get very far convincing them of eternal truths if you tie them to accepting an ancient Mesopotamian notion of a firmament as a factual reality instead of as a temporal cultural image. quote: science is a limited means by which to ascertain reality. Can I be anymore clear? Yes, we can take that for granted. Nevertheless it has to be taken seriously within its field. Science does not tell us all about reality, but neither does the rest of reality contradict valid science.

PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/13/2008 6:54:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Gluadys: We've been down this bumpy road before but you haven't yet answered one pivotal question... As a Christian, I believe that the Bible is God's Holy and infallable Word, if you believe the same, then please list Scriptures that speak of evolution. (Since literally hundreds speak to special creation, as I have listed before) True, God does use secondary causes in His creation - the tree of life in the Garden of Eden is a good example, and yes, God does create some stuff from stuff that's He's already created, such as man from dirt. BUT, that is still infinately distant from the monkey to man mentality. God tells us that He created everything according to its KIND - leaving no room for a cow to whale change. (so what if science now says that specific transition never happened, it's still a good example of the mentality and way of thinking of the evolutionist) You mean evolutionary and related science isn't claiming a "big bang" any more? That wheelchair laden dude with glasses still does. Isn't he supposed to be smart? The big bang says (this is remembered from my high school text books circa 1993) that nothing condensed into a tight ball and exploded into everything. (reader's digest version) I suppose you could correct me as to the specifics of what scientists are believing nowadays, but that's what they believed well enough in 1993 to tell us in our science books. Back to my original question... What God says is truth. What does God say about how everything began? Genesis is a historical narrative, not prose - little more than a casual glance will tell you that - where is evolution if God indeed used that means? Knowing how God works is not limiting God, it's limiting US. Where is God lying then? Is he lying to us in the Bible, or is he lying to us through his creation by giving it the false appearance of age? Your worldview only allows for one of those two answers, but the one thing that will be true with either, is that God is a liar. Ummm, no, you're neglecting a third possibility: Man is stupid. God doesn't tell us in His written Word that evolution occured - He tells us that CREATION occured. God's creation does not point folks to evolution - it points folks to God. Because man HATES God, he tries to explain life without God. Man's beleif system plays into the facts and winds up telling the story he wants to hear. Take this sentence for example... "Woman without her man is nothing." Now punctuate it... "Woman, without her, man is nothing." "Woman, without her man, is nothing." Same facts - same words - but opinions and biases play into it and come up with two completely different conclusions. This world and the facts seen in it are no different. Believe God...

todd_t -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/13/2008 7:33:56 PM)
quote: You can keep crowing your ignorance on this point, but it doesn’t help you. Jack, you can call me all the names you wish in an attempt to reinforce your own belief system. I frankly don't care. Yet the fact remains that ID will never be take seriously by science because of its foundation on something that can never be confirmed under the scientific method. Simply saying: "Life (as we know it) is so complex that a supernatural agent must be at work" is not science. It is philosophy.

ianz -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/13/2008 8:54:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Ummm, no, you're neglecting a third possibility: Man is stupid. God doesn't tell us in His written Word that evolution occured - He tells us that CREATION occured. God's creation does not point folks to evolution - it points folks to God. Because man HATES God, he tries to explain life without God. Man's beleif system plays into the facts and winds up telling the story he wants to hear. Take this sentence for example... "Woman without her man is nothing." Now punctuate it... "Woman, without her, man is nothing." "Woman, without her man, is nothing." Same facts - same words - but opinions and biases play into it and come up with two completely different conclusions. This world and the facts seen in it are no different. Believe God... Your post is an excellent example of the failures of literalist interpretation. It's all interpretation. You're not necessarily reading God's Word - you are reading your interpretation of God's Word (assuming it even was in the first place, which I am happy to accept for the sake of this discussion). You are hoping that the amazing folk who translated what may or may not have been God's Word into your particular language, and the various iterations of that translation, got it right. Exactly as you have demonstrated, the misplacement of a single comma can have huge consequences on the meaning. Human stupidity as you labelled it, is precisely the reason you can't be 100% reliant on the Word you read alone. You can of course be 100% reliant on your interpretation if you wish, but that doesn't mean you are right. Regards, Ian

todd_t -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/13/2008 9:18:24 PM)
quote: Again, the fact that you don’t know anything about systems biology or biomimicry is a sign of your ignorance; such principles are being taught in engineering classrooms, and vice verse. Incredible. Yes, some animal designs are used in engineering (such as streamlining), but those are more the exceptions than the rule. Basic animal constructs have no connection whatsoever with mapping the architecture of complex machines like hypersonic jet engines, or ionic drive systems. The electronics and other components have nothing to do with biology because these machines in question are completely different.

PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/13/2008 9:20:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ianz quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Ummm, no, you're neglecting a third possibility: Man is stupid. God doesn't tell us in His written Word that evolution occured - He tells us that CREATION occured. God's creation does not point folks to evolution - it points folks to God. Because man HATES God, he tries to explain life without God. Man's beleif system plays into the facts and winds up telling the story he wants to hear. Take this sentence for example... "Woman without her man is nothing." Now punctuate it... "Woman, without her, man is nothing." "Woman, without her man, is nothing." Same facts - same words - but opinions and biases play into it and come up with two completely different conclusions. This world and the facts seen in it are no different. Believe God... Your post is an excellent example of the failures of literalist interpretation. It's all interpretation. You're not necessarily reading God's Word - you are reading your interpretation of God's Word (assuming it even was in the first place, which I am happy to accept for the sake of this discussion). You are hoping that the amazing folk who translated what may or may not have been God's Word into your particular language, and the various iterations of that translation, got it right. Exactly as you have demonstrated, the misplacement of a single comma can have huge consequences on the meaning. Human stupidity as you labelled it, is precisely the reason you can't be 100% reliant on the Word you read alone. You can of course be 100% reliant on your interpretation if you wish, but that doesn't mean you are right. Regards, Ian Umm, Ian, first off I didn't interperet the text - I read it as it is. And guess what else? I'm not limited to English - I can and have interpreted Genesis from Hebrew, so I've seen it in it's original context - and it's still historical narrative. Have you spent your entire life researching and reading Biblical texts in Hebrew, Koine Greek, and English translations? I have. There is no "interpretation" of the text - people only complain about folks' "interpretation" when it doesn't agree with how they feel it should read. This is a disgusting sin. Read the Bible as it was intended, reading it in context by the literal grammatical historical method. This means that we take the words for what they mean in their normal, or plain sense, following the grammatical rules of literature, seeking with diligence to determine the historical background and context before rendering a decision on what it is actually saying. Why can't some people take the Bible's meaning literally? Because they can't believe in miracles - the root cause is because they don't believe God is God.

gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/13/2008 9:40:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander God doesn't tell us in His written Word that evolution occured - He tells us that CREATION occured. Right. And creation tells us evolution occurred. Scripture doesn't mention it, but it doesn't contradict it either quote: God's creation does not point folks to evolution - it points folks to God. Actually, it does both. quote: Because man HATES God, he tries to explain life without God. Man's beleif system plays into the facts and winds up telling the story he wants to hear. No doubt, but that has nothing to do with evolution. Unbelief was around long before science.

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/13/2008 9:40:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Is it ever OK to believe a lie? No. Is it OK to believe evolution? It's a lie, so no. So, even if I don't believe in the bible or the God of the bible, I should accept your interpretation of what the bible says? Why would I-- why would anyone-- do that? quote: Genesis is a historical narrative written by a man who "spoke with God like a man speaks with his friend." I do not believe that Moses wrote Genesis, nor do I believe that it is the product of any one man. I have found plenty of reasons to dispell the notion that Moses was the author. quote: Evolution and the like "sciences" tell us that something sprang from nothing and that cows can turn into whales... (a fairy tale for adults) Wrong. Evolution does not hold to either of these positions. quote: Evolution is not a science by the very definition of science. Actually, it is. What definition of science are you going by? quote: Then again, neither is Creation - but it never pretends to be science. You've never heard of Creation Science? It's out there, so you are incorrect here, too. But you are correct that it is not science. quote: This whole "intelligent design" **** is so far out of bounds that it borders on blasphemy. I wouldn't call it "blasphemy," but I am not favorably impressed by it. quote: Evolution attempt to describe life sans God. Actually, you are quite right. That's because a scientific theory cannot interpolate an intangible as a factor. God cannot by quantized or formulated; therefore, it is impossible to work him into the equation.

ianz -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/13/2008 9:47:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Umm, Ian, first off I didn't interperet the text - I read it as it is. And guess what else? I'm not limited to English - I can and have interpreted Genesis from Hebrew, so I've seen it in it's original context - and it's still historical narrative. Have you spent your entire life researching and reading Biblical texts in Hebrew, Koine Greek, and English translations? I have. There is no "interpretation" of the text - people only complain about folks' "interpretation" when it doesn't agree with how they feel it should read. This is a disgusting sin. Read the Bible as it was intended, reading it in context by the literal grammatical historical method. This means that we take the words for what they mean in their normal, or plain sense, following the grammatical rules of literature, seeking with diligence to determine the historical background and context before rendering a decision on what it is actually saying. Why can't some people take the Bible's meaning literally? Because they can't believe in miracles - the root cause is because they don't believe God is God. Good you can read Hebrew - but you learned how to read Hebrew from another human, right? So it's possible that you make mistakes when you read. Since it's possible that you make mistakes, it follows that you must interpret what you read, which immediately allows the possibility that your interpretation is incorrect. History is littered with problems in translation. Why do you think there is so much debate over what particular passages actually mean? It's because words can't possibly convey everything, so we fallible humans have to fill in the gaps. That's called interpretation. This process: quote: This means that we take the words for what they mean in their normal, or plain sense, following the grammatical rules of literature, seeking with diligence to determine the historical background and context before rendering a decision on what it is actually saying. Is definitely interpretation. As some rightly point out with regard to evolution and other theories, our knowledge about historical context is changing all the time. So we can't be certain that our current understanding is correct. Regards, Ian

gluadys -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/13/2008 9:59:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Umm, Ian, first off I didn't interperet the text - I read it as it is. Yes, you do. Choosing to "read it as it is" is an interpretation, just like any other. Choosing what "as it is" means is interpretation. All communication requires interpretation. In fact, the idea that something is to be "read as it is" assumes a very modern (post-Enlightenment) perspective on the nature of a text. There is no possible way a 21st century American and a 2nd century BCE Judean would get the same thing from the text if both "read it as it is" because the very idea of reading it "as it is" would mean very different things to them. quote: And guess what else? I'm not limited to English - I can and have interpreted Genesis from Hebrew, so I've seen it in it's original context - and it's still historical narrative. Another misnomer. It is narrative. But until you can give me the characteristics which distinguish historical narrative from other prose narrative, you cannot say it is historical narrative. Generally speaking, without extra-textual information, there is no way to determine whether a particular narrative is historical or not. quote: There is no "interpretation" of the text - people only complain about folks' "interpretation" when it doesn't agree with how they feel it should read. There is always interpretation of the text. quote: Read the Bible as it was intended, reading it in context by the literal grammatical historical method. You see, that is an interpretation. Nothing in the bible tells you to use the literal grammatical historical method. Those who prefer a particular interpretation use this method because it gives them the theological results they want. But the method does not come from the bible, nor is it likely the method intended by the authors who had very different concerns. quote: This means that we take the words for what they mean in their normal, or plain sense, following the grammatical rules of literature, seeking with diligence to determine the historical background and context before rendering a decision on what it is actually saying. Sounds simple. But I have never seen it applied consistently. There are a dozen loopholes in this favored interpretive method to make the scripture say what you want it to say. quote: Why can't some people take the Bible's meaning literally? Yet early Christian teachers who did believe in miracles also taught that it could often not be understood literally, because the literal meaning made no sense. Take Origen, for example, who held that it was ridiculous to suppose daylight existed on earth before the sun and therefore the Genesis days were symbolic. Do you really think he had a problem with miracles?

swan42 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 1:33:43 AM)
quote: Yet early Christian teachers who did believe in miracles also taught that it could often not be understood literally, because the literal meaning made no sense. Take Origen, for example, who held that it was ridiculous to suppose daylight existed on earth before the sun and therefore the Genesis days were symbolic. Do you really think he had a problem with miracles? Perhaps God was participating in a Circadian rhythm experiment without an external reference source like a sunrise and defined a day as a billion years between sleep cycles.

KirstinT84 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 2:03:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drj11 How bout entertaining the idea that your interpretation is wrong? You ask of science what you will not even ask of yourself. I don't think you have any idea of the sheer magnitude of error you attribute to scientists from the past 150+ years in order for your interpretation of Genesis to be true. It's not just evolution. Even if your movement was to succeed in toppling evolution, you will have to then work on dismantling countless other scientific theories that contradict your interpretation... when one actually and honestly acknowledges this, you can begin to see the danger of this mindset. It's based on such a total inability for self-reflection, and irrationality... the kind of thinking that when wide-spread, topples nations and causes a regression to the primitive.. its extremely dangerous and volatile, and desperately needs to be corrected. To be bluntly honest, there's no room for that kind of thinking in the modern world. The fundamentalism in the Middle East is a great example of this same type of irrationality. Countless other Christians have asked themselves the hard questions and learned how to reconcile the Bible with what we have discovered about the natural world... why can't you do the same? So now that I've read this whole thread... Wow, just wow. Anyhow, drj's got it dead on. One thing that you must consider if you choose to subscribe to a literal interpretation of Genesis (YEC and all that) is how completely that interpretation flies in the face of years and years of good science. Oh, and please, do not forget to consider that you might (or I might, or any of us might - which is why we use science to help us uncover the truth, I might add), just maybe, be completely, totally, entirely wrong. I've seen alot of "because the bible says X then X must be true and Y can't be true, and to heck with all the evidence supporting it" in this thread. Some of the people that discuss around here don't believe anything the bible has to say in the first place, so I am afraid this argument will not work with them. There are better tactics out there.

Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 2:17:12 AM)
quote: Yet the fact remains that ID will never be take seriously by science because of its foundation on something that can never be confirmed under the scientific method. Simply saying: "Life (as we know it) is so complex that a supernatural agent must be at work" is not science. Stuff like this reads like it was copied and pasted from the "Skepticism for Dummies' website. Please, show some sign, any sign, that you have thought about the issue for more than 5 seconds. quote: Yes, some animal designs are used in engineering (such as streamlining), but those are more the exceptions than the rule. Basic animal constructs have no connection whatsoever with mapping the architecture of complex machines like hypersonic jet engines, or ionic drive systems. Listen, the fact that you know nothing, and keep demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about how an 'animal' is constructed is completely proved. You are just ignorant on the subject and you are wasting precious storage space one the server by posting this tripe.

KirstinT84 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 2:23:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Yet the fact remains that ID will never be take seriously by science because of its foundation on something that can never be confirmed under the scientific method. Simply saying: "Life (as we know it) is so complex that a supernatural agent must be at work" is not science. Actually, what they've said is quite true. ID won't be taken seriously by scientists because it is dependent on faith, and faith does not science make. In other words, it won't be taken seriously because it's not science at all. For the record, saying that life is so complex that a supernatural agent must be involved is not science either. Not at all.

Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 2:31:34 AM)
quote: Actually, what they've said is quite true. ID won't be taken seriously by scientists because it is dependent on faith, and faith does not science make. In other words, it won't be taken seriously because it's not science at all. For the record, saying that life is so complex that a supernatural agent must be involved is not science either. Not at all. Until you demonstrate you have any clue what ID says, there is very little to take seriously in your posts either.

KirstinT84 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 3:54:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Until you demonstrate you have any clue what ID says, there is very little to take seriously in your posts either. Well, if you insist... If you seriously believe that I read this whole thread and don't know what ID is (even if I'd never heard of it before, I'd certainly know what it was after 11 pages of banter about it) that's your problem. However, I will concede to explain to you why it is not science, but since others have been trying to tell you for the last 11 pages of this discussion, I don't figure I'll have any more luck than they did, but hey, why not give it a shot, huh? In order for scientists to call something a "scientific theory", it has to meet several criteria. ID has been accused by various people of violating every one of them, and I will deal with several here. A scientific theory must: Be testable and falsifiable - which means that I, or anyone else who feels so inclined, must be able to come up with an experiment that would test whether ID is correct or not. I should be able to actually test whether something was created intelligently or whether it was not. Currently, I can't do that because the "intelligent" in intelligent design, comes from religion, which is based on faith. Faith (and thus god, or the influence of god), is by definition untestable. You could say that you have been (or something has been) influenced by god in some way, but there is no way for me to test your assertions in a scientific manner. Have Parsimony - A scientific theory should demonstrate the simplest possible solution for observed events, with as few explanations and entities as possible. A scientific theory should not include unnecessary explanations or entities. ID is not parsimonious because the stipulation that god must be involved is not only unnecessary (and thus violates the rule of parsimony), but it's just plain untrue. Be Correctable and dynamic - One of the most beautiful things about true science is that it is self-correcting. If I were to come out with some off-the-wall, unbelievable theory about how the mind worked (I'm a psychologist), my colleagues would all be trying to replicate my findings, and if theirs did not line up with mine, I'd rethink and rewrite my theory. That said, a scientific theory must be open to modifications when evidence is found that does not support it, or suggests it is wrong in some way. Considering the amount of evidence for evolution and the rigidity of ID... well, you get the picture. One more, just for fun... Be Provisional - Scientific theories have to be tentative. Even evolution and gravity are tentative. If we were to find a better explanation than we have now to explain how life got to where it is today or why we don't just fly off the face of the Earth every time we walk out of our doors, we'd be ready (given enough experimental replications) to throw our old theories out and accept the new ones because scientific theories do not claim certainty. If your theory is not open to other people checking to make sure it's true, and your theory asserts certainty, it's not a scientific theory, it's a theology, or a philosophy. My only hope is that someone, anyone, will have a better understanding of why ID is not accepted as a science. For further information look up ID on wikipedia, their site for it is a very good one. It explains why people do and don't believe it's a science and so on. There are about 200 references of all kinds as well, which I do not think would be appreciated if I listed them all here.

PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 8:03:33 AM)
Wow... There are a LOT of people in here that just need to get saved. If you're offended by what I just said, then you are probably the one I'm talking to. You MUST see yourself as a vile, hater of God, whose every thought is consumed with nothing but evil from birth, and that your sin is primarily vertical, attacking the very God that gave you life and freedom to choose. REPENT! Every day, take whatever steps are necessary, no matter how dramatic, to remove the practice of sin in your life. Then believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God! Follow after Him, keeping His commandments, desiring to be more like Him every day! Only then can the Holy Spirit of God come into your life and open up the Scriptures to you. Until then, it will only be just a book. The Holy Spirit opens up true meanings of God's Word, and you will then see that God leaves no room for an idea like evolution. We've had over 6,000 years of life on this planet, and only in the last 150 years has man invented this idea of evolution. What's new is NOT true - God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, His Word does not change. Believe God, or you will DIE in your SINS...

Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 8:47:05 AM)
quote: If you seriously believe that I read this whole thread and don't know what ID is (even if I'd never heard of it before, I'd certainly know what it was after 11 pages of banter about it) that's your problem. However, I will concede to explain to you why it is not science, but since others have been trying to tell you for the last 11 pages of this discussion, I don't figure I'll have any more luck than they did, but hey, why not give it a shot, huh? If, as you admit, you have no idea what ID is, then I reccomend you do some reading, find out what it does and doesn't say, and get back to us; posting out of admitted ignorance on subject really on leads to a lot of wasted time on all sides, k?

1dblthnk02 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 10:26:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Wow... There are a LOT of people in here that just need to get saved. Probably everyone, in fact-- except you, of course. quote: If you're offended by what I just said, then you are probably the one I'm talking to. You like offending people? quote: You MUST see yourself as a vile, hater of God, whose every thought is consumed with nothing but evil from birth, and that your sin is primarily vertical, attacking the very God that gave you life and freedom to choose. Hmm . . . "freedom to choose," but not the freedom from being "nothing but evil at birth." Now that makes sense . . . quote: The Holy Spirit opens up true meanings of God's Word, and you will then see that God leaves no room for an idea like evolution. Well, there must be thousands of truths, because we definitely have thousands of different Christian denominations each with their own inspired version of the bible's "true meaning." Evolution is not just an "idea," btw. It is a robust theory with lots of empirical evidence to back it up. quote: Believe God, or you will DIE in your SINS... And you have a nice day, too.

PromiseLander -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 10:46:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02 quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Wow... There are a LOT of people in here that just need to get saved. Probably everyone, in fact-- except you, of course. quote: If you're offended by what I just said, then you are probably the one I'm talking to. You like offending people? quote: You MUST see yourself as a vile, hater of God, whose every thought is consumed with nothing but evil from birth, and that your sin is primarily vertical, attacking the very God that gave you life and freedom to choose. Hmm . . . "freedom to choose," but not the freedom from being "nothing but evil at birth." Now that makes sense . . . quote: The Holy Spirit opens up true meanings of God's Word, and you will then see that God leaves no room for an idea like evolution. Well, there must be thousands of truths, because we definitely have thousands of different Christian denominations each with their own inspired version of the bible's "true meaning." Evolution is not just an "idea," btw. It is a robust theory with lots of empirical evidence to back it up. quote: Believe God, or you will DIE in your SINS... And you have a nice day, too. Do you think that I'm going to lose any sleep over the fact that I have offended ANYONE in here? Friend, I don't care about your feelings. I have a burden for you that goes beyond something as fleeting as emotion. There are things at stake here that go much deeper than any of us are capable of fully comprehending. Look, ALL of us have committed willful crimes against a God so Holy that the very serephim in Heaven hide their faces from His Glory and cannot even look upon Him. (Isaiah 6) They are the burning ones who sit above the throne of God ready to carry out the slightest whim of the One who created them and in realization that they are a mere creation standing in the Holy presence of their Creator they hide their faces and feet with their wings becuase they feel unworthy in His presence. This God told the mountains to rise up, and they obeyed. This is the God who told the valleys to be made low, and they obeyed. This is the God who told the oceans that they can come this far and no further, and they obeyed. This is the God who told the stars in heaven to shine forth and rotate a certain way, and they obeyed. Then this God created man and told him to obey His commands and YOU said NO! I can PROVE to you that the very thoughts and intents of your heart are evil since birth... Just take your thoughts in the last week, the last day, or even the last hour about anyone you know, and if I could project them onto a screen for everyone to see, you would run out of the room in shame. We are ALL like that. And we have ALL offended God. If that doesn't bring you to tears then you have NO idea about how Holy God is! Repent and believe...

swan42 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 5:20:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: If you seriously believe that I read this whole thread and don't know what ID is (even if I'd never heard of it before, I'd certainly know what it was after 11 pages of banter about it) that's your problem. However, I will concede to explain to you why it is not science, but since others have been trying to tell you for the last 11 pages of this discussion, I don't figure I'll have any more luck than they did, but hey, why not give it a shot, huh? If, as you admit, you have no idea what ID is, then I reccomend you do some reading, find out what it does and doesn't say, and get back to us; posting out of admitted ignorance on subject really on leads to a lot of wasted time on all sides, k? I know that most proponents of ID are actually creationists in sheep's clothing as a direct result of Edwards v. Aguillard. Also, a large percentage of these creationists in disguise follow the strategy of the Wedge Document. Whereas an ID proponent that was not secretly a creationist would entertain and search for evidence that life was designed by Zeus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 5:25:16 PM)
quote: I know that most proponents of ID are actually creationists in sheep's clothing as a direct result of Edwards v. Aguillard. Also, a large percentage of these creationists in disguise follow the strategy of the Wedge Document. And what are the primary tenets of ID that lead you to believe this?

swan42 -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 5:36:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I know that most proponents of ID are actually creationists in sheep's clothing as a direct result of Edwards v. Aguillard. Also, a large percentage of these creationists in disguise follow the strategy of the Wedge Document. And what are the primary tenets of ID that lead you to believe this? The evidence won't be in the tenets of ID, but the statements and actions of ID proponents themselves. It's ok if you are not a creationist and are an ID proponent, I'm just saying that most are both. Event timeline for "Of Pandas and People" http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/21bf0929ef75059e2d611d50d89d2c65.png Court testimony about the various for drafts of "Of Pandas and People" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day6am2.html “The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to ‘the truth’ of the Bible and then ‘the question of sin’ and finally ‘introduced to Jesus.’” --Church & State Magazine, April 1999.

Jhud -> RE: Ben Stein is right! Darwinists are tyrants. (5/14/2008 5:37:37 PM)
quote: The evidence won't be in the tenets of ID, but the statements and actions of ID proponents themselves. It's ok if you are not a creationist and are an ID proponent, I'm just saying that most are both. And what are in the tenets of ID that will cause an ID proponent to be a creationist?

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI