|
|
| ||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 10-Aug-21, 11:30 |
 Accepting evolution and science tends to promote the acceptance of atheism. Now, it doesn't always, of course. There are many religious people who accept evolution. I would say they're guilty of cognitive dissonance, or at least of some kind of watery deism.” —Jerry Coyne, professor emeritus in the department of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago and a member of both the Committee on Genetics and the Committee on Evolutionary Biology. This may be the only statement I agree with Jerry Coyne on (except the part where he claims evolution is a “fact” - even the evolutionists on GK are not that fanatical, though some come pretty close.) That quote from Coyne is the opening paragraphs of a speech he gave several years ago. Coyne’s speech presents the evidence-free theory of evolution (when the theory claims to explain the complexity of life by turning one species into another species) as fact and truth and oddly seems to encourage the acceptance of the theory of evolution to promote atheism. I thought science and religion were supposed to be separate. They should be, but as genuine and legitimate scientists discover more and more how flawed (indeed impossible) Darwin’s theory is as a means to explain the complexity of life, the theory has turned into a religion for atheists, and they react with great hostility when their religion is scrutinized or criticized. Coyne also makes the same mistake that evolutionists on GK make - that all criticism and disbelief in the theory of evolution is rooted in religion when it’s not. It’s rooted in the absolute lack of evidence of one species turning into an entirely separate species through random mutation and natural selection (otherwise known as blind chance.) Whether Coyne and evolutionists on GK make this mistake intentionally to distract from how weak and discredited Darwin’s theory has become as a way to explain the complexity of life, or whether they actually believe it, is up in the air. But the bottom line is, evolutionists are either deceptive or delusional. Here’s the rest of Coyne’s speech for those interested. I must confess I didn’t read the whole speech; there’s only so much rubbish I can take. ffrf.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Aug-21, 22:15 |
Deleted by coram_deo on 11-Aug-21, 10:48.
|
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Aug-21, 22:24 |
In this club, we expect members to follow GameKnot rules, treat each other with respect, and argue with rationality, logic, and data.>> 😂 |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Aug-21, 22:48 |
Well, after 45 posts, and with the thread’s creator about to shut it down, here’s what they’ve accomplished: One fella posted an uncredited copy-and-paste (likely from Wikipedia) that didn’t identify a single transitional fossil. Another poster said he saw a big fossil on a TV program. The club founder posted a link about mathematical probabilities of evolution with no excerpts or explanations and without acknowledging that more credible scientists completely dispute the findings of his link’s author. And that’s it - as far as substance. Of course there were a lot of attacks on me, a brief discussion about knee replacement surgery, some traumatic memories of Bible camp and some off-topic rambling about the Catholic Church. But, as far as rebuttals to the article that cited flaws with the theory of evolution, well, that was limited to the uncredited and irrelevant copy-and-paste, the big fossil that appeared on a TV show and a Google link posted with no excerpts or explanation. Well done, boys! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Aug-21, 23:03 |
But how’d they do on substance? I know they love to attack me, but how’d they do with rebutting the article that the thread was created to address? In 47 posts, the sum total of substance in responding to that article was (forgive me if you heard this before.) 1) An uncredited copy-and-paste (likely from Wikipedia) that didn’t identify a single transitional fossil. 2) Someone saw a big fossil on a TV show. 3) The club founder posted a link with no excerpts or explanations about the mathematical probabilities of evolution without acknowledging that the article he cited is disputed by more credible scientists. Take away the insults, the personal attacks, the off-topic ramblings about Bible camp and the Catholic Church and that’s what you’ve got. Sadly, but predictably, most of that thread is just insults and personal attacks. But that’s what happens to anyone who challenges the atheists’ religion. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 11-Aug-21, 10:48 |
Bottom line: I gotta stop going on GK when I’m drinking beer. I react too easily in the flesh and not in the Spirit, the struggle between which the apostle Paul describes in Galatians chapter 5. Here’s the amended version of the 22:15 post with the insults removed: <<This is what the former Flux wrote recently. It seems that his current criticism focusses on 'species turning on into an entirely separate species'.>> That’s always been my criticism. Everyone accepts microevolution (changes within a species.) It’s macroevolution (one species turning into an entirely different species) where evidence is completely lacking. <<It seems to me to be a repetitive mantra that entirely disregards all evidence to the contrary, some actually presented in this very thread.>> So my “current criticism” is also a “repetitive mantra?” And what is the “evidence” that has been presented in your thread? An uncredited copy-and-paste (likely from Wikipedia) that doesn’t identify a single transitional fossil? A guy saying he saw a big fossil on a TV show? You posting a link about mathematical probabilities for evolution (which is disputed by more credible scientists?) This is your evidence?! <<Why should we respond any further when our counter-arguments are neglected?>> Your “counter-arguments” - at least as far as the recently-started evolution thread - are non-existent. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 14-Aug-21, 19:19 |
And this thread was started by the club’s founder as a mechanism to refute Randy Alcorn’s article, “ Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - Revised.” They refuted nothing. It’s genuinely pathetic and a disgrace to science. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 14-Aug-21, 20:05 |
Good grief. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 09:08 |
I’m not anti-science; quite the contrary - I’m pro-science. I just don’t think the theory of evolution, as a way to explain the complexity of life, is science. <<keep telling us that some scientists in that past have made errors.>> I’m pretty sure Piltdown Man, which I posted about yesterday, was the first time I’ve done that. Not sure how that equates to “keep telling us.” <<Not all of them, just some.>> Right. <<Not because they have applied scientific principles with rigour, but because the DIDN'T.>> Right. And what scientific principles are applied with rigour to macroevolution? <<Yet they never talk about Calvin having Servetus burned at the stake, or the Reformed Church supporting Apartheid in South Africa, or the 'Christian' South splitting the Union and fighting a civil war that cost millions of lives to defend their 'right' to keep slaves.>> There you go, equating the theory of evolution with religion. Glad to see, ‘cause that’s really what the theory of evolution is, the religion of atheists. Only it’s a religion with zero evidence (as far as one species turning into a different species, also known as macroevolution,) whereas the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the most important belief in Christianity and most important event that ever happened in the world, is quite strong. Feel free to check out the thread, “15 Logical Reasons To Believe The Resurrection for just some of the evidence 👍👍 <<I have been accused of apostacy by our friend;>> I’ve never accused you of that. But you’re quite liberal in bearing false witness and misrepresenting what I have said and believe, so I’m hardly surprised you’re making that accusation. <<not for my theological position (which he probably doesn't even know, much less understand),>> You told me in a PM that you believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ and that you believe He died for the sins of mankind and was Resurrected. I wouldn’t expect you to say that publicly because I think you’re embarrassed to believe it. It’s your lack of courage in stating your beliefs that I find curious. Either you’re ashamed to have those beliefs or you really don’t have them. If the former, bear in mind these words of Jesus Christ as quoted in the Gospel of Luke: “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.” (Luke 9:26) If the latter, you wouldn’t be the first atheist to pose as a Christian on the Internet. That’s almost like a stock character in a movie, along with the “Christian” who got a degree in theology, saw the “light” and became an atheist. I once debated an atheist who claimed to have a degree in theology and he didn’t even know that God’s Holy Spirit indwells believers at the moment they accept Christ. BTW, do you believe that, Bob? Send me a PM if you’re embarrassed to admit it. <<but because I refuse to accept his misrepresentations about biology.>> Huh? What misrepresentations? <<That shows what sort of 'faith' he has.>> And your pathological dishonesty shows what kind of faith you have. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 09:18 |
Right. Good scientists. Scientists that question and investigate and test (you know, practice science) not scientists who blindly and lazily accept something because they want to believe it. <<Yep, it took 40 years to convince everyone,>> It took 40 years to discover the Piltdown Man missing link was a fraud. <<because the fraud was clever enough to fool a significant number of scientists; but the scientific method got there eventually, as it usually does.>> Yeah, it got there *after* (in fact, well after) Piltdown Man was taught as a legitimate missing link to millions of people in schools and universities. <<It did that by examining the evidence, not by ignoring it.>> So no one ignored the evidence during the 40 years Piltdown Man was presented as an authentic missing link when it was a complete and total fraud? <<As our friend said, these were sceptical, truth-seeking scientists. They rely on evidence, not 'their own consciences' (i.e., wishful thinking or intellectual laziness). And Yep; whenever our friend is forced to admit the truth he makes sure he does it with plenty of insults and sneers.>> LOL. I’m gonna have to put a sarcasm notification on some of my posts. As for the insults and sneers, I sometimes - regrettably - respond on your level. I try not to, but sometimes, particularly when I’m drinking beer, my better nature goes on vacation. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 09:21 |
I haven’t looked further into it, but I will. But the theory’s got so much else wrong with it, your position is like looking at a car that was totaled in an accident and saying, “Oooh, look at that scratch on the bumper.” |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 09:36 |
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21) I post as much as I do because I enjoy the Holy Bible and spreading the good news that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And the GK forum sure could use good news what with all the negativity and doom-and-gloom you guys post - if it’s not the coronavirus, it’s global warming, and if it’s not global warming, it’s the political divide in the U.S., and if it’s not the political divide in the U.S., it’s the disaster du jour. It’s like you guys scan the news for the most negative stuff you can find and then feel compelled to share it. I guess if I didn’t believe in, and have faith in, God, I’d be a Debby Downer too. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 09:52 |
Huh? What did I misspell? <<His name-calling of other GK members is typical,>> Really? I’d say it’s actually quite rare, particularly in comparison to the name calling, insults and personal attacks I’ve received from you and your club members. Remember when you compared me to Satan and said I was mentally ill and a bigot? Ah, those were good times. But I forgave you 😃 <<as is his 'verdict' about scientists.>> Not all scientists and not in all areas. Just the scientists who refuse to question and investigate the theory of evolution as a way to explain the complexity of life. And I’m far from the only one who thinks the theory has become a religion. Just check earlier in this thread for examples of who else believes that and why. <<I won't go into the likely reasons for such hatred of other human beings,>> Huh? I don’t hate anyone. Sometimes, I react as I shouldn’t due to all the insults, misrepresentations of what I’ve said and believe and personal attacks that come out of your club on a pretty frequent basis. Mostly, I just ignore it. <<but I would have thought it to be minimal among true devoted Christians.>> Christians aren’t expected to live perfect lives. They’ll stumble and fall. But they have an advocate in Jesus Christ when they do: “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” (1 John 2:1) And remember - the one who points the accusing finger has three other fingers on his hand that point back at him. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 09:58 |
I suppose by “think correctly,” he means think like him. Perhaps I need to go to a re-education camp? Or be beaten until I “think correctly?” Saying I don’t “think correctly” is quite a revealing statement, both in its authoritarian impulses and the implicit claim by the one who makes that statement that he knows all there is to know and therefore knows what “correct thinking” is. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 20:25 |
“Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986), acknowledges that evolution is religious: ‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint… the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.’ “ answersingenesis.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 20:28 |
“The religion is all on the other side. Meyer and other proponents of I.D. are the dispassionate intellectuals making orderly scientific arguments. Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.” Professor David Gelernter, Yale University, from his article, “Giving Up Darwin” (I.D. refers to Intelligent Design) |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 20:31 |
“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear. There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.” William Provine, the Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. (This guy must have been a barrel of laughs at dinner parties!) |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 20:37 |
“At first sight, believing in evolution may not seem an attractive proposition. However, what makes it attractive is that there is no God to whom you have to give an account of your actions. This is borne out by the following quote from an atheist: ‘We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever.’ ” Jeremy Rifkin, an American economic and social theorist, writer, public speaker, political advisor, and activist. answersingenesis.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 20:40 |
“Having conceded this, I do also think that there are and have been Darwinians who have made something of a religion — call it a secular religion, if you like — out of their science. At the time of Darwin himself, his great defender Thomas Henry Huxley (grandfather of the novelist Aldous Huxley) set out consciously to make of Darwinism a phenomenon that not only substituted for religion but that gave the same emotional satisfactions of religion. Like those who were to follow, Huxley did not see the world (as would I and Dawkins) as blind and meaningless, but rather as something with a direction — a direction upwards as evolution led progressively to our species. As the Christian sees the world made for humans, so Huxley saw the world preparing for humans, and as the Christian sees moral action centered on humans so likewise Huxley saw moral action centered on humans. Huxley gave what he himself called ‘lay sermons,’ and he worked hard to promote his world vision. In one of the most interesting moves, he and fellow workers even set about building churches — cathedrals — to their new religion. Except they called them ‘museums of natural history.’ These were places where, instead of going to a Christian cathedral on a Sunday morning, a family could go on a Sunday afternoon and seen (sic) magnificent panoramas of past life: all of those fossil dinosaurs being dug up in the American West and shipped east for all to see and admire. On the principle that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, natural history museum after museum was built in the style of a gothic cathedral or earlier. Gaze at the Norman architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto and you could be in Durham, England. As it happens, toward the end of his life, Thomas Henry Huxley began to doubt the worth of his philosophy. He did not return to God, but he began to doubt that evolution had all of the answers. But this has not stopped his successors, starting with another grandson, Julian Huxley. This younger Huxley even wrote a book called ‘Religion without Revelation,’ where he saw Darwinian evolution working progressively up to our species and where he saw nature itself giving directives about proper action — action to preserve and help humankind. Today, the world’s most distinguished Darwinian, Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University, likewise thinks that evolution progresses up to humans and speaks of his world picture as a ‘myth’ that must replace conventional religions.” Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986) Note: The above is an excerpt from a longer article. To read the article in its entirety, click this link: m.huffpost.com |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 20:49 |
So saying the Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution carries no weight at all for anyone who’s even remotely familiar with the Bible. Here’s what else the Catholic Church believes and practices that’s not Biblical. From gotquestions.org Are Catholic beliefs and practices biblical? The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this biblical?” If a teaching is Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and obeying His Word than whether it can trace a line of succession back to Jesus’ apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). Traditions are not inherently invalid…there are some good and valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine, practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God? Salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15). Assurance of salvation: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation. Good Works: The Roman Catholic Church states that Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34). This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants. Prayer: The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7). Priesthood: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people,” whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). Sacraments: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture. Confession: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9). Mary: The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the only redeemer. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator between God and men. Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture. That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of church tradition. Our guideline is to be: “What does Scripture say?” (Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” www.gotquestions.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 15-Aug-21, 21:00 |
We’re told the evidence is overwhelming but no one can produce any. When confronted with evidence that goes against the theory, such as the Cambrian explosion, but many more examples exist, we’re told, “Millions of years! Ya gotta understand - millions of years!” The theory is absolute rubbish as a way to explain the complexity of life. It’s survived as long as it has because it’s become the religion of atheists and they will viciously attack anyone who wants to scrutinize it. This thread is full of examples of scientists who have been ostracized, told to keep quiet, met with hostility etc. all for trying to practice science. Sick. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 16-Aug-21, 06:31 |
Based on earlier experience, I don't think he will survive long anymore at GK, even though he has been extremely productive with his single-person 'club'. I think he is about to require some more treatment pretty soon.>> Yep, this is how people react when you criticize their religion. Notice the hostility and rage, and, yes, he’s back to implying I’m mentally ill 🙄. Really sick and sad he’s so emotionally invested in a lie and too prideful and stubborn to open his eyes and unstop his ears so he can learn the truth. I once wondered what the prophet Jeremiah meant when he wrote this verse: ““Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:” (Jeremiah 5:21) And there are many other verses in the Holy Bible that describe this fellow’s sad state: "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (2 Corinthians 4:3-4) "Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:" (Ephesians 4:18) "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14) You could criticize Christianity all day long and I wouldn’t react with the hostility that atheists have when the theory of evolution is challenged or criticized. That’s because I know what I believe is true. Maybe deep down, evolutionists realize they believe a lie and they become so angry because they don’t want their lie exposed. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 16-Aug-21, 07:10 |
Well that settles it! The only other response is from the verbal gymnastics guy pleading for acknowledgment of his “dog ate my homework” excuse. But look at the “Evolution theory” thread that was started in FIAT FLUX III to rebut an article I posted that listed 10 flaws with the theory of evolution. Aside from being another vehicle to insult and attack me, how are they doing on substance? 1) An uncredited copy-and-paste (likely from Wikipedia) that didn’t identify a single transitional fossil. 2) Someone saw a big fossil on a TV show. 3) The club founder posted a link with no excerpts or explanations about the mathematical probabilities of evolution without acknowledging that the article he cited is disputed by more credible scientists. The rest of the thread is mostly attacks on me and attacks on Christianity. I even told them how to refute the claim that transitional fossils don’t exist: * State the exact number of transitional fossils that exist; * State the names of those fossils and when and where they were found; * State why they are believed to be transitional fossils, and - if one were approaching this scientifically and therefore did not have an emotional or ideological interest in the outcome - what characteristics of the purported transitional fossils cast doubt (to whatever degree) on them being transitional fossils. But they can’t do it. Evolutionists have nothing. Like I said before, there’s more evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than exists for the theory of evolution. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 16-Aug-21, 07:25 |
Huh? Of course I know what I believe is true! “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6) The reason this fellow doesn’t know the truth? “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14) Sad thing is, if this fellow would just open his mind and sincerely ask God to reveal Himself to him, he might find his way out of that awful darkness he’s in. As for my leaving GK in the past, I just got fed up with the insults and harassment, with the negativity and virtue signaling, with the dishonesty and deceit. But it doesn’t bother me now ‘cause I just feel pity for people who are like that. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 16-Aug-21, 19:47 |
Sadly you will see this mentality among atheists. “Crab mentality, also known as crab theory, crabs in a bucket (also barrel, basket, or pot) mentality, or the crab-bucket effect, is a way of thinking best described by the phrase "if I can't have it, neither can you" The metaphor is derived from a pattern of behavior noted in crabs when they are trapped in a bucket. While any one crab could easily escape, its efforts will be undermined by others, ensuring the group's collective demise. The analogy in human behavior is claimed to be that members of a group will attempt to reduce the self-confidence of any member who achieves success beyond the others, out of envy, resentment, spite, conspiracy, or competitive feelings, to halt their progress.” en.m.wikipedia.org Don’t let the crabs stop you from accepting Christ and enjoying your life. Leave them in their bucket of misery and despair. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Aug-21, 00:51 |
“Evolutionists, not being very bright and living in a permanent fog, have not understood that creationism has not been disproved, only disbelieved. Evidently they can't make that distinction. Many of them think that making a statement makes it a fact, and by denouncing creationism, they discredit it! Of course, they only discredit themselves in the eyes of informed, honest people. Evolutionists have been discrediting themselves for many years, but especially in recent years. And it often takes place in formal public debates with creationists. The Institute for Creation Research in California has been a pioneer in scientific research, education and apologetics. Dr. Henry Morris, Dr. Duane Gish and others have gone into universities and faced evolutionists in public debate-on their turf! Dr. Morris spoke of those debates: ‘We are always careful to stick to scientific arguments, especially using the fossil record to show that macro-evolution has not occurred in the past’. The evolutionists, however, more often than not, do not stick to scientific arguments. They will attack the Bible, show that creationists have religious motivations, argue that one can be religious and still believe in evolution, contend that creationism is not scientific, or attack our personal character or credentials. ‘But one thing they will not do is give any real scientific evidence for macro-evolution. This is because there isn't any real evidence for macro-evolution! This is why creationists almost always win the debates. We win, not because we are better debaters, but because creation is true, evolution is false, and real science confirms this.’ Evolutionists have learned that creationists are not simply ‘bible thumpers.’ They expected creationists to quote a few Bible verses then sit down, but evolutionists have discovered that it doesn't work that way. The creationist deals with geology, biology, paleontology, and other branches of science, and they ask questions that evolutionists cannot answer. The creationists also provide a model that proves to be far more acceptable to thinking people than the claptrap of evolution. Dr. Henry Morris was scheduled to debate a professor at the University of Houston, but a university official canceled the debate at the last minute because he did not want scientific creationism discussed on his campus! Wait a minute! I thought a university was a place for various ideas to be disseminated, debated and discussed by inquiring minds. Surely it is not a place for propaganda-or is it? Could it be that only what is politically correct is permitted at the University of Houston? At the National Academy of Sciences all but one person agreed that debating with creationists should be avoided! Well, wonder what they are afraid of? Could it be the truth? If evolution is really as scientific as evolutionists claim, they should be eager to engage creationists in debate. Maybe, just maybe, the evolutionists are not so sure of the correctness of their cause and are embarrassed to face creationists in formal debates. Maybe that is one reason many evolutionists get mean-spirited when they discuss creationism. They don't have the answers so they attack.” www.cstnews.com |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Aug-21, 03:45 |
If evidence of macroevolution exists in the fossil record, you should be able to: * State the exact number of transitional fossils that exist; * State the names of those fossils and when and where they were found; * State why they are believed to be transitional fossils, and - if one were approaching this scientifically and therefore did not have an emotional or ideological interest in the outcome - what characteristics of the purported transitional fossils cast doubt (to whatever degree) on them being transitional fossils. Instead of doing that, evolutionists engage in a lot of wordplay and conjecture and use artistic renderings in lieu of fossils to support what they would like to believe happened (but really didn’t.) How hard is it to simply state the names of the transitional fossils, when and where they were found and why they’re considered to be transitional fossils? I mean if they really exist, that shouldn’t be hard to do at all. Why can’t you do it? Forget the conjecture, drawings, links, rhetoric and brainwashing. Produce the transitional fossils by name, date, location and characteristics or move onto something else. And BTW, since you apparently have me on ignore as well, feel free to actually do that. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Aug-21, 03:58 |
Everyone knows that microevolution (changes within a species) occurs. That’s very different from macroevolution (one species turning into another species.) |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Aug-21, 14:07 |
Sounds like criticism without substance. Kind of like macroevolution is a theory without substance. What’s wrong with my doctrine? Can you cite examples? Or is it all based on my rejection of the theory of evolution as a way to explain the complexity of life? I don’t believe in macroevolution, but my disbelief is not based on the Holy Bible - it’s based on the utter lack of scientific evidence for one species turning into another species. And I’m far from the only person who rejects macroevolution. As science advances and the flaws in Darwin’s theory grow as a result, more and more learned people - far more learned than you or I - are rejecting macroevolution as well, As to your other point, that it takes a lifetime of work to understand the Bible, that’s absolute rubbish. You seem, like a lot of people, to not understand or to discount the role and power of God’s Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. Most people can instinctually understand God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son, but the Holy Spirit, the third part of the Trinity, is much more of a mystery. But He absolutely helps believers understand the Bible (and memorize verses and passages from it.) That said, I take doctrine from pastors I trust - but I don’t agree with everything they say. If I think they say something that is in conflict with the Bible, I go with the Bible. Man is fallible; the Bible isn’t. And not everything in the Bible can be interpreted in a variety of ways. But that requires getting into individual passages and verses. But, as an example, there’s no way to reconcile the creation account in Genesis with macroevolution, no matter how symbolic you try to make the creation account. The two are incompatible, but, again, I reject macroevolution based on the utter lack of scientific evidence for it. And this idea, which one of the FIAT FLUX III members shares, that the Bible must be studied like a calculus textbook before an exam is ridiculous and just a way to discourage people from reading the Bible. The Bible is understandable to the layman, especially with the aid of God’s Holy Spirit, which indwells everyone who has accepted Christ at the moment he or she accepts Him. From what a Catholic friend told me around a decade ago, the Catholic Church discourages the laity from reading the Bible because the priests think they’re not capable of understanding it. This is just another point on which the Catholic Church is wrong and which makes it resemble the Pharisees with its arrogance and man-made traditions. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 17-Aug-21, 14:39 |
I received a Christian upbringing as well, and while I strayed from the faith for (far too) many years, I returned to it and read the Holy Bible and have, as of now, handwritten 77 percent of it (by chapters.) You seem in your comment to claim you, as an atheist, have a better understanding of Christianity than I do, which is frankly just another manifestation of your incredible arrogance. But you, like dmaestro, can’t cite a single thing that you’re “perplexed” by in what I’ve written - most of which is simply quoting Bible passages and verses I like with commentaries that I agree with. Presumably, you’re “perplexed” about why I don’t believe in macroevolution. Why don’t you ask all the (honest) scientists who disagree with it at their professional peril? Because their reasons (which I’ve quoted in articles in the “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage” thread,) are the same as mine. You and your club members can continue with your baseless criticisms and insults of me as long as you want. But I’m no longer going to waste time replying to them because it’s becoming clear to me that this is just an effort to distract and antagonize me. Hopefully you and your club members will find something better and more constructive to do with your time. |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
