|
|
| ||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 18-Aug-21, 12:48 |
 <<Our Learned Professor has posted about the End Times, the key to understanding them being the Rapture. A lot of very learned men have pondered the End Times for centuries. Golly, even this humble koala has preached a sermon series on Revelation, but I didn't dare mention the Rapture. I stuck to the meaning of the text instead.>> Maybe you should consider the most relevant passages in the Holy Bible about the Rapture aren’t in Revelation. “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17) “Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (1 Corinthians 15:51-55) “I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” (Luke 17:34-36) Here’s a commentary on the verses from Luke: “a. In that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left: This passage is often applied to the rapture, a term applied to Jesus’ coming for His people at a time when the world seems to run in the normal routines of life (Luke 17:26-30). i. The New Testament passage that most clearly describes this event and gives the name rapture from the Latin translation of the passage is 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18: For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words. ii. These words of Jesus (one will be taken and the other will be left) seem to describe this phenomenon of being caught up…in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air as described in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18. b. One will be taken and the other left: Because this will happen during the normal course of life (while one sleeps in bed, while another is grinding grain, and while another works in the field), the emphasis is on readiness. Jesus will come suddenly and at an unexpected moment. i. This connects with the prior illustrations of Noah and Lot. ‘Noah and Lot were taken and, therefore, saved from judgment while the rest were left for destruction.’ (Pate)” <<But Coram has the answer!>> No, I’m expressing my opinion. <<This is how he starts his explanation... "As far as I can tell, and I’m far from well versed in eschatology (in fact, I just learned that term today,)". But don't worry about the paucity of research or study. He understands this topic in the EXACTLY the same detail as he has already displayed in his anti-Evolution posts.>> I first heard and learned about the End Times (and the events associated with them) at least five years ago as I mentioned in the post you’re quoting from. The fact I became aware of the term “eschatology” yesterday has nothing to do with when I heard and learned about the End Times. You know this, of course, but because you’re dishonest and quite hateful, you choose to claim I just learned about the End Times yesterday. <<It starts with the Rapture. Funny how so few Christians outside American Fundamentalists or Dispensationalists accept the Rapture as an article of faith. In fact, I can't think of any serious theologian before the 18th century who even imagined that Paul's comments to the Thessalonians should be interpreted in the sense now promoted by 'Rapture Theology'.>> If you had watched the second video in that thread, you would have learned of prominent theologians in the 1600s who not only understood Paul’s passages to be a reference to the Rapture, but they used the term “Rapture” as well. You’ve heard of Matthew Henry, right? He was the most prominent theologian of his time and his commentaries on the Bible are quoted today. <<It is all part of the capture of some literalist flakes of the church by the prestige of Science. Believers felt a need to come up with hard, fixed, 'objective' answers to religious questions, to combat the startling progress science was making in providing hard, fixed, objective answers to previously inexplicable physical phenomena.>> This is a very impressive word salad. Too bad it doesn’t make any sense. <<Coram also provides a series of cherry-picked verses, out of context and 'interpreted' to fit the premise.>> Ah yes, the familiar and intellectually-lazy “out of context” objection. Here’s a commentary that disputes your “out of context” assertion. Pay particular attention to the last two paragraphs: “a. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them: Those alive and remaining until this coming of Jesus are caught up to meet Jesus in the air, together with the dead in Jesus who have already risen. i. The verb translated caught up here means to seize, or to carry off by force. ‘There is often the notion of a sudden swoop, and usually that of a force which cannot be resisted’ (Morris). In the ancient Greek, the phrase to meet was used as a technical term to describe the official welcoming of honored guests. ii. This passage is the basis for the New Testament doctrine of the rapture, the catching away of believers to be with Jesus. The word rapture is not in the ancient Greek text, but comes from the Latin Vulgate, which translates the phrase caught up with rapturus, from which we get our English word rapture. iii. Paul’s statement, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is both dramatic and fantastic. He speaks of Christians flying upward, caught up… in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. We wouldn’t believe this unless the Bible told us it were so, not any more than we would believe that God became a baby, that He did miracles, that He died on a cross and that He lives in us. iv. Paul’s language here is so straightforward and free from figurative speech that there is no missing his intent. ‘The Apostle’s declarations here are made in the practical tone of strict matter of fact, and are given as literal details… Never was a place where the analogy of symbolical apocalyptic language was less applicable. Either these details must be received by us as matter of practical expectation, or we must set aside the Apostle as one divinely empowered to teach the Church.’ (Alford) b. Shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air: Paul’s plain language leaves no doubt regarding the certainty of this event. Yet the timing of this event in the chronology of God’s prophetic plan is a matter of significant debate among Christians.” enduringword.com <>But I have to give Coram credit where it's due. For someone who didn't even know what 'Eschatology' meant a day ago, he is an amazingly fast learner!>> Again, knowing about the End Times and the events therein and knowing the technical term “eschatology” are obviously not the same. You know this, of course, but just can’t help your dishonest and hateful remarks. <<Or is he just an amazingly fast cut-and-paster from his favourite fundamentalist website?>> Huh? gotquestions.org, enduringword.com and videos of sermon excerpts by Pastor Joseph Prince are hardly “fundamentalist websites.” I am pretty fast at copy-and-paste, though. One thing you’ve taught me, Bob. I know what it feels like to be the victim of a stalker. youtu.be |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 18-Aug-21, 21:07 |
Quote passages from the Holy Bible with commentaries, talk about subjects related to mainstream Christianity and they lose their marbles! In the 46 days this club’s been in existence, the atheists have written 383 posts about it and me - an average of more than eight a day! Guys, I’m just not that into you. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 18-Aug-21, 21:28 |
From: Me Subject: Enjoy! Evolutionism Quotes "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition. “…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475. “Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature….Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358. “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422. “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page. "The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." Albert Fleischmann. Witnesses Against Evolution by John Fred Meldau (Denver: Christian Victory Publishing, 1968), p. 13. “[T]he theory suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts…No one can demonstrate that the limits of a species have ever been passed. These are the Rubicons which evolutionists cannot cross…Darwin ransacked other spheres of practical research work for ideas…But his whole resulting scheme remains, to this day, foreign to scientifically established zoology, since actual changes of species by such means are still unknown.” Albert Fleischmann, "The Doctrine of Organic Evolution in the Light of Modern Research," Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 65 (1933): pp. 194-95, 205-6, 208-9. “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Louis Bounoure. The Advocate, 8 March 1984, p. 17. “And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books, 1988), pp. 5-6. Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA. "With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199. "If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous." R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. " `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation." Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903). 63. "Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967. "What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected in `normal science,' such a dogmatic approach does not appear healthy." R. Brady, "Dogma and Doubt," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 17:79, 96 (1982) www.nwcreation.net |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 19-Aug-21, 10:50 |
The Arrogance of the Atheist It’s as if the atheist is saying, “Hey, I know more about your life than you do” - and they say this to complete strangers! The arrogance is breathtaking! Part of the atheist’s reaction to testimonies has to do with the “crabs in a bucket” syndrome - for example, an atheist who is mired in drug addictions and despair will attack someone who has overcome drug addictions and found happiness based on the saving power of Jesus Christ. It’s as if the atheist is saying, “Hey, I can’t stop doing drugs and being miserable. How dare you succeed where I failed! Your life story is a lie!” Of course, one of the biggest aids in overcoming addictions, whether it’s to alcohol or drugs, is to acknowledge a higher power. As most people know, that is part of the Alcoholics Anonymous 10-step plan. But since the drug-addicted atheist won’t admit a higher power exists, he is at an automatic disadvantage in trying to overcome his addiction. He may even try to convince himself that he’s happy being an addict. Everyone can and should live their lives the way they want. And if a former junkie overcame her addiction to drugs and found happiness through the saving power of Jesus Christ, who is the atheist to challenge what she has said. He knows nothing about her! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Aug-21, 21:47 |
Does this sound like an open-minded scientist? Or a know-it-all ignoramus? <<Flux now posts two short videos as proof against Darwinian evolution theory.>> Ah, actually as challenges to it, which combined with all the information in the “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage” thread totally discredit it. <<The first is the simple opinion of a young biologist>> With far more credentials than you! <<that the information in a living organism could not have evolved by chance.>> Exactly! <<Although no citation of the 2nd Law is given here,>> Why are you so fixated on that? That has nothing to do with his argument! I’ll refute your bogus 2nd law assertion in due time; stop trying to interject it into an argument that has nothing to do with it. << it sounds like the creationists' misconception that order cannot arise out of disorder. Which is simply false.>> Oh good grief. More of your irrelevant nonsense. May I suggest you stick to the argument at hand? <<The second slightly longer video 'calculates' the statistical chance of forming the 3D structure of even a relatively small protein (like an enzyme, for example, necessary for catalysing chemical or physical reactions).>> Ok <<This is (again) an old creationists' argument that has been debunked a long time ago.>> How? <<It is odd (or is it?) that Flux - who knows his Bible so well - doesn't seem to know that these issues have been shown to be false long ago.>> Prove it, Blowhard! Prove what you claim has been debunked has actually been debunked. Evolutionists get away with this far too often - they claim facts that don’t exist and arguments that don’t exist support Darwin’s Garbage theory. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 20-Aug-21, 23:05 |
But the minute you challenge Darwin’s garbage theory and expose it as a lie and they go bonkers. Which just proves Darwin’s garbage theory is their religion. If they were real and legitimate scientists, they would admit that macroevolution has no evidence to support it - and a ton of evidence to discredit it. But because they’re not legitimate scientists and are emotionally and ideologically invested in Darwin’s horse poop, they’ll defend it to their dying day! So sick and sad! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 21-Aug-21, 04:23 |
|
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Aug-21, 22:55 |
is a citation of David Berlinski. Berlinski's credentials are briefly listed below (Wikipedia) Wikipedia: David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American author who has written books about mathematics and the history of science as well as fiction. He is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, a center dedicated to promulgating the pseudoscience of intelligent design>> Your Wikipedia citation neglects to mention a great deal of Mr. Berlinski’s biography, but I’m not sure what your criticism is based on. Are you suggesting David Berlinski didn’t say what I quoted him as saying or are you saying he doesn’t believe what he said in the video or are you saying he’s not qualified to make those statements? To refresh your memory, Mr. Berlinski, in the video I posted in the “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage” thread, said the theory is “a kind of amusing 19th-century collection of anecdotes that is utterly unlike anything we’ve seen in the serious sciences.” And Mr. Berlinski’s assessment of the theory continues: “One, the theory doesn’t have any substance. Two, it’s preposterous. Three, it’s not supported by the evidence, and, four, the fact that the biologists are uniformly in agreement about this issue could as well be explained by some solid Marxist interpretation of their economic interests.” So which is it - He didn’t say that, he doesn’t believe that or he’s not qualified to say that? Because unless your criticism is one of those three, you’ve got nothing. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 22-Aug-21, 23:03 |
“Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques. He lives in Paris. In addition to his latest, Human Nature (Discovery Institute Press, 2019), David is the author of numerous books, including The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and It Scientific Pretensions (Crown Forum, 2008; Basic Books, 2009), Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics for the Modern Library series at Random House (2004), The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (Harcourt, 2003), The Advent of the Algorithm (Harcourt Brace, 2000), Newton’s Gift (Free Press, 2000), and A Tour of the Calculus (Pantheon, 1996). William F. Buckley Jr. said of The Devil’s Delusion that ‘Berlinski’s book is everything desirable; it is idiomatic, profound, brilliantly polemical, amusing, and of course vastly learned.’ Recent articles by Berlinski have been prominently featured in Commentary, Forbes ASAP, and the Boston Review. Two of his articles, ‘On the Origins of the Mind’ (November 2004) and ‘What Brings a World into Being’ (March 2001), have been anthologized in The Best American Science Writing 2005, edited by Alan Lightman (Harper Perennial), and The Best American Science Writing 2002, edited by Jesse Cohen, respectively.” davidberlinski.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 23-Aug-21, 08:07 |
The ‘one man show’ has slipped to 5th most popular club. I think his faith must be waning....>> Someone who has me on ignore (but appears incapable of ignoring me) seems fixated on the activity level ranking of clubs on this website. That, frankly, pretty sad. I post what I want, when I want and am not posting out of a desire to have a higher activity ranking or out of a desire to please God. I’m already fully and completely accepted and loved by God because of my faith and belief in Jesus Christ (see John 3:16 and Romans 10:9.) As for the “one man show” remark, I’ve had two people apply to be in this club: One falsely stated in a PM to me that he “absolutely” believed in the Virgin birth, atoning sacrifice and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I suspected his statement about what he believed was false because he exclusively attacks Christians on this website and never has a good word to say about the Holy Bible (and often finds fault with it, despite his claim in the PM to me that he believes the Bible is “inerrant” and “infallible.”) My suspicion that he was not being honest in the PM was proven right only a few days ago when he publicly stated what he really believed. He initially tried to do that via PM, but the founder of FIAT FLUX III requested he do that publicly, and so he did. The other guy who applied, while honest and interesting, seems to enjoy disrupting clubs by making inflammatory posts in violation of GK standards (as, he says, a way to test the limits of freedom of speech,) and I’m not interested in having to constantly police this club. I post as much as I do out of gratitude for what Jesus Christ has done - and continues to do - in my life and because I enjoy spreading the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Anyone can be negative, and this forum is filled with negativity - from the coronavirus to global warming to the political divide in the U.S. And that doesn’t even include the seemingly endless sniping and potshots. So enjoy your club’s higher ranking and have a blessed day 👍👍 |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 30-Aug-21, 07:51 |
“Your skeptic friends might quickly challenge this as being a form of circular reasoning. They might say, ‘You believe in God because the Bible tells you to. And you believe in the Bible because God tells you to (in the Bible).’ To be fair to your friend, they’re right.” He admits it himself>> A fellow who has me on ignore, but seems incapable of ignoring me, apparently thinks I’m the author of the above quote he lifted from an article I posted on the “three I’s” of the Holy Bible - inspired, inerrant and infallible (and I would add a fourth - immutable.) I don’t agree with every opinion and every sentence in an article I post and this is one example where I disagree with the author. Yes, I agree with the author’s premise (that the Holy Bible is inspired, inerrant and infallible) and yes, I believe in God (His existence) but I don’t believe either of those because the Bible tells me to. I’ve always believed in God (many years before I read the Bible) and came to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ based on Biblical and non-Biblical sources. And I came to believe the Holy Bible is inspired, inerrant and infallible because nothing in the Bible has been proven wrong (and the Bible makes many assertions that could be proven wrong *if they were wrong.*) I said this (numerous times) before, but the Bible is not one book - it’s 66 books written by 40 men over 1,500 years. So if, for example, the book of Isaiah, which has numerous Messianic prophecies, or the book of Daniel, which prophesied centuries in advance the exact date Jesus Christ would be crucified, were not in the Bible, would these now “non-Biblical” sources have greater credibility simply because they weren’t included in the Bible? I used Isaiah and Daniel as examples because fulfilled prophecies were the final evidence (of many evidences) that led me to believe the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was/is true. And yes, the books of Isaiah and Daniel are in the Bible, but why does their inclusion in the Bible render them less credible? The fellow who seems incapable of ignoring me seems still to be laboring under the mistaken belief that the Bible is one book (it’s actually 66 books) written by one or several authors (instead of 40, many of whom didn’t know each other) over a short period of time (instead of 1,500 years.) But good to know you’re reading my posts so diligently! Thank you 😊 |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 30-Aug-21, 08:18 |
“I don’t agree with every opinion and every sentence in an article I post.”>>> <<Even he doesn’t believe the nonsense he posts. I doubt he even believes in god. He’s just trolling...>> You extrapolate far too much from that statement. Not everyone in this forum is paid to post and not everyone in this forum is a troll. But I’m glad you pointed out the error in that article (I since added a post beneath it citing the error and crediting you for its discovery) and I’m glad you’re reading what I post so diligently. I should have caught that error myself! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 30-Aug-21, 08:48 |
“ I believe the Bible is true because no one has demonstrated anything in the Bible to be false” Nor has anyone proven that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or little green men from Mars are false. I guess he’ll believe just about anything>> This is a good example of your dishonesty (and, frankly, your trolling as well.) Here’s what I actually wrote: “I believe the Bible is true because no one has demonstrated anything in the Bible to be false, and plenty of statements in the Bible, if they were false, could be proven to be false.” m.gameknot.com You purposefully cut that sentence in half and left out “…and plenty of statements in the Bible, if they were false, could be proven to be false” because the second half of that sentence invalidated your claim about my position being “bereft of logic” and your examples of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, etc. And you purposefully misrepresented what I said (i.e. lied about what I said) so you could criticize me based on your misrepresentation and false equivalencies. And you did that moments after accusing me of being a troll. Talk about psychological projection. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 30-Aug-21, 11:10 |
Which is fine. Once one has decided to believe in magic, logic is not only irrelevant, but dangerous to one’s paradigm. It’s ok. Children are allowed to believe in fairy tales. Most of us grow out of that stage. We should have compassion for the ‘unfortunate child’ who doesn’t. We should humor them but not allow them to make important decisions or operate heavy equipment.>> <<Trolling Yes. I was. I'm done now.>> Isn’t this part of your club’s mission statement: “In this club, we expect members to follow GameKnot rules, treat each other with respect, and argue with rationality, logic, and data.” How well do you live up to that? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Sep-21, 08:29 |
From: Me Re: Request for status report How y’all doin’? Nearly a month ago, the founder of FIAT FLUX III started a thread to debunk the 10 flaws with the theory of evolution listed toward the end of this post. So, 116 posts later, how many have you debunked? Oh I know there’s been a lot of insults directed at me, a lot of attacks on creationists and some off-topic banter about knee surgery, but in terms of the reason the “Evolution theory” thread was created, how are you doing with debunking those 10 flaws cited in Randy Alcorn’s article? ‘Cause it seems like that thread of yours has turned into another attack thread on me and my club. Not that I mind - I’m actually beaming with pride! ‘Cause your club now has two attack threads directed at me totaling some 500+ posts, which is far more than another club’s attack thread on Neutral Ground, which has (obviously) more members and more activity. To refresh your memory, here is the first post in the “Evolution theory” thread written by none other than the founder of FIAT FLUX III: “Let's start with a newly revised summary of the creationists' arguments against evolution theory. This is written by Randy Alcorn (whom you might google in order to find his credits) It would be appreciated if each post here would exclusively concern just one of the 'ten major flaws' listed in Alcorn's article, and that this would be defined in the beginning of the post. In this way we would might be able to put together some useful discussion on the topic.” And here are the 10 flaws cited by Alcorn, with a link to his article at the bottom: 1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. 2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. 3. Mutations do not increase information, as required by evolution. 4. Natural Selection is conservative, not creative. 5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true. 6. Pictures of ape-to-human “missing links” are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. 7. The radioactive dating methods that evolutionists use to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are based on questionable assumptions and give unreliable results. 8. “Leftover” body structures are not evidence for evolution. 9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. 10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. www.epm.org Oh, and by the way, I provided an article that addresses what should be the proper definitions for microevolution and macroevolution in the last couple of days (did you miss it? If so, let me know and I’ll repost it) and searched in vain for the alleged refutation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (perhaps you can provide the thread that alleged refutation appeared in along with the date it was posted?) Nevertheless, that objection (2nd Law of Thermodynamics) was *not* among the objections cited by Alcorn so it doesn’t count as progress toward refuting Alcorn’s 10 flaws. But I’d still like to see it anyway. Thanks, and for those atheists living in America 🇺🇸, Happy Labor Day Weekend! Warm affection, Professor Fiat Flux III |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Sep-21, 09:28 |
Is ridiculous. Hypothesizing a supreme being that created everything from scratch is stupid. If that were true, even micro evolution (as they call it) wouldn’t happen. Morons grasping at straws to find scientific rationales for their myths. They deserve ridicule, not logical argument.>> And here you have elements of the typical response from an atheist when his religion (the theory of evolution) is criticized - Change the subject to creationism, insult the person citing flaws with the theory of evolution and avoid substance. And this is hardly a unique response. Earlier in this thread (or it might have been the “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage” thread,) I cited examples of scientists who have said to question the theory of evolution is to risk your career and reputation. Evolutionists often say Christians are dogmatic, but that’s actually psychological projection on their part. Most Christians welcome debate and challenges to what they believe because they know what they believe is true. Evolutionists try to shut down debate on their religion through insults, ad hominem attacks and intimidation because they know, perhaps subconsciously, that what they believe is false. You need more faith to be an evolutionist than you do to be a Christian. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Sep-21, 10:30 |
No matter how well you play, he’s just gonna crap on the board, knock over the pieces and claim victory.>> <<Seriously It’s like arguing with a 5 year old who SWEARS the sun revolves around the Earth. He simply lacks the maturity, logic and background knowledge to accept the truth. Plus he’s married to his myth which nails the door shut. No truth allowed... only fables. Because “Look! You can see the sun going around the Earth!!”>> More insults and hate from FIAT FLUX III. Note how the FIAT FLUX III poster said he’s not going to argue *with me* when it’s actually the founder of FIAT FLUX III who posted the article citing 10 major flaws with the theory of evolution in his “Evolution theory” thread and who asked members of his club to respond to it. I didn’t ask members of FIAT FLUX III to respond to the article nor did I write the article. But this is what evolutionists do - when confronted with flaws in their religion, they change the subject to creationism, insult and attack, misrepresent what creationists believe and avoid substance. Insults and hate - it’s all they’ve got. Oh, very rarely an atheist will post a Google link (with no summary or explanation of it) and declare “Case closed!” while ignoring rebuttals to that link. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Sep-21, 14:12 |
Yet the founder of FIAT FLUX III declared himself essentially done with posting in that thread because I wasn’t responding to him. Huh? Here’s the purpose of that thread as stated by the club founder in the very first post: “Let's start with a newly revised summary of the creationists' arguments against evolution theory. This is written by Randy Alcorn (whom you might google in order to find his credits) It would be appreciated if each post here would exclusively concern just one of the 'ten major flaws' listed in Alcorn's article, and that this would be defined in the beginning of the post. In this way we would might be able to put together some useful discussion on the topic.” Searching for substance in that thread that addresses Alcorn’s article is like searching for a needle in a haystack. Instead, the thread is mostly about me, me, me! Guys, I appreciate your obsession with me, but you’re allowed to (attempt to) debunk Randy Alcorn’s article without input or involvement from me. Like I said a few days ago, I appreciate your constant attempts to get my attention and interest, but I’m just not that into you! 👋 |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Sep-21, 22:21 |
Sounds like a whole lotta excuse making is on the horizon! <<I had an in my opinion nice organised plan to discuss creationism based on a creationist's article with 10 discrete points, to be discussed one by one. I admit to have totally failed.>> Yes, you totally failed. Because you shifted your focus from Randy Alcorn’s article to me. And why did you do that? Because you couldn’t refute Randy Alcorn’s article and needed someone to divert attention to so your failure wasn’t obvious and recognized. <<I don't understand why FLUX is so upset that I took those 10 points for discussion and not 'his' points.>> Huh? I wanted you to respond to Randy Alcorn’s points, which you said you would respond to in your first post in that thread. <<Yet, 'his' points (which were all direct copies from articles on the web) were more or less the same. Moreover, FLUX had already showed (and still does) that he never engages in a real discussion, but systematically backs off totally and/or ignores any counter-argument.>> Randy Alcorn’s 10 major flaws with the theory of evolution has nothing to do with me. You couldn’t dispute any of Mr. Alcorn’s points and so you’re trying to shift attention onto me. Pathetic! <<The example with the 2nd Law of thermodynamics is a good one.>> Did Randy Alcorn cite that? If not, cite the title of the thread and date of your rebuttal (as I previously requested.) <<Now he has even totally forgotten that HE brought up that argument originally, and that I immediately debunked it! If he cannot find that exchange now, that too is understandable.>> Show me the thread and date where you allegedly “debunked” that. <<I will not waste further time on it. Moreover, some of the arguments in 'the list of 10' (and some of FLUX's 'own' arguments) actually state that spontaneous evolution of a complex system is impossible, which is the same as the '2nd Law argument' but in layman's terms.>> Oh good grief. You refuted none of Randy Alcorn’s objections to the theory of evolution and now you’re trying to pretend that you have. So pathetic. <<I actually disagree with some posters in the Club that 'creationism is ridiculous'. This is an argument similar or analogous with saying that 'religious faith is ridiculous', which I also disagree with. I would like to make my point here very clear in this regard: I am NOT favouring evolution theory for the reason that I am an atheist.>> And I am not disputing the theory of evolution on the basis that I am a believer. I’m disputing it on the basis that Darwin’s theory, as a way to explain the complexity of life, is utter and complete garbage. <<AND, I am an atheist of the 'old school', who does NOT say or believe there is no God, only that I see no reason to make that postulate.>> Because you’re frankly, and no offense intended, unable to see anything beyond the natural. <<Also, despite FLUX's repetitive and completely unfounded claims, evolution theory is certainly not a religion of mine.>> It absolutely is your religion. There’s no other explanation for your blind allegiance to it and your overlooking its numerous flaws. << It is...a theory...which (I am sure) will have to be (and will be) amended numerous times in the future - not by religious fanatics, but by hard and well-controlled science.>> The theory is garbage and amending garbage still leads to garbage. Wake up! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Sep-21, 23:01 |
Deleted by coram_deo on 04-Sep-21, 09:01.
|
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 05:36 |
I never said that to you or about you, Bob. I have no idea if you’re a Christian. My intuition tells me you’re probably not, but not based on your belief in Darwin’s theory but on your pathological dishonesty. You know I never said you weren’t a “true Christian” but you claim I did to smear me and that’s pretty despicable, |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 05:48 |
Yes, you can compare me to Satan, repeatedly and publicly claim I’m mentally ill, call me a bigot and a fanatic, and permit members of your “high quality” club with its “carefully selected” moderators to repeatedly call me an idiot and a fool and to repeatedly misrepresent and lie about me and what I’ve said and believe, but the minute you get a taste of that yourself, you’re suddenly offended and outraged. You put on airs of being a cultured and refined “gentleman,” but deep down, your savage and arrogant nature, your true nature, always comes out. At heart, you’re an uncivilized savage, and posting classical music videos and recounting your trips to the opera doesn’t change who you are. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 08:21 |
I sincerely doubt it. <<We LOVE the Holy Bible- one member, with one monologue.>> You’re surprised that in a largely atheistic forum, where the few Christians on here rarely or never post, that my club has no members? <<The only way to contact this person is by private message.>> I wish that were true, at least as far as members of FIAT FLUX III go. You guys repeatedly contact me through the GK forum (if by contact, you mean insult, belittle, harass and attack) and the ones who do that the most have me on ignore. How ironic. <<He constantly orates his own point point of view>> You expect me to orate someone else’s point of view? <<without public opposition.>> Without public opposition? Do you read the GK forum? I wouldn’t mind if opposition to what I write and post was based on substance, but 95% of the “opposition” is name calling, insults, personal attacks, etc. <<It is clear to me that he suffers delusions of grandeur,>> Not at all. I’m grateful for what God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son and the Holy Spirit have done for me and continue to do for me. <<does not tolerate opposition,>> Like I said, I don’t mind opposition based on substance but that’s not what members of FIAT FLUX III do. Read through your club’s “Evolution theory” thread and “We love the Holy Bible” thread (both the first and current versions) and count how many times I’m insulted and attacked. And on what basis? Because I choose not to believe the theory of evolution (specifically macroevolution) and publicly criticize it. Even when you guys manage to ignore me for a day or two, all I have to do is post criticism of the theory of evolution and FIAT FLUX III beehive buzzes into action 🐝 🐝 🐝 <<has on over inflated sense of self import>> Again, not at all. I owe all that I have done and do to the grace of God Almighty. <<and that he lacks any flexibility.>> If by “lacks any flexibility” you mean I don’t compromise what I believe and don’t move off my position that the theory of evolution is garbage, which it is, then sure, I’m willing to agree that I lack flexibility. <<In short: narcissistic little man.>> Didn’t you brag on here a while back about seducing your physical therapist? What married guy brags on a chess forum about seducing another woman and cheating on his wife? A narcissistic little man, in my book. <>This reminds me very much of a short little man with a teeny-weeny mustache born in Austria.>> Ah, the Hitler reference. I was waiting for that. When all else fails, the amoral atheist drags out Hitler. Never mind that you and others who routinely compare people to Hitler cheapen the evil that Hitler did. <<A man who was always on the fringes, until he found a platform from where he tried to change the world. The difference being that in today's world such platforms are mostly ignored and such people recognized for the intellectually inferior beings that they are,>> I’m not trying to change the world and I’d be grateful if members of the “high quality” club with its “carefully selected” moderators that you belong to would ignore me. Heck, one of that club’s moderators repeatedly admitted to trolling me even though the club founder kept insisting that he didn’t. High quality stuff over there 🙄 <<because the world knows more than it did a century ago,>> And yet much of the world still thinks a “scientist” from the 1850s solved the riddle of life. <<and information is readily accessible in the modern times.>> Bad news for evolutionists. Good news for Christians. <<After quickly scanning the thread to which we have been directed above, and just looking at the others, I dare say that even within the Christian community this guy is the laughing stock of the day.>> And you, as an atheist, are qualified to say that? What do you know about Christianity? What I post and believe is mainstream Christianity. <<I do not intend to read the read at all, nor any of the others in that club. It is, even at a cursory glance, the utmost crap and does nothing to enrich my life or broaden my knowledge.>> That’s because you’re spiritually dead. <<No need to waste my time with that->> Yeah, why waste your time learning the truth? <<in this club there are more than enough good [verifiable] information with sturdy debate about the pro's and con's, by intellectually superior individuals.>> 😂 <<In this club I learn a lot about things that really interest me.>> I genuinely feel bad for you if you’re relying on that club for information. <<My question, stalhandske, is: Why bother?>> Yes, please. Feel free to ignore me and stop talking about me. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 08:31 |
<<Oh the irony. And everything he accuses you of, Stal. All ironic too. You have to appreciate the humor in that.>> On the rare occasions members of FIAT FLUX III question or criticize Christianity with substance (why evil exists, for example) I respond with substance. Just check the threads on here. And then check the “Evolution theory” and “We love the Holy Bible” threads in FIAT FLUX III to see how much substance is in them. Very little. Lots of name calling, insults, mockery, personal attacks, etc. but that’s to be expected from atheists posting anonymously online. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 08:38 |
Maybe I forgot to log off? <<He was only lent credibility because of the sycophants who sat through the ordeal.>> What sycophants? <<Don't make the same mistake. You are giving him focus on which he can project the crap that he speaks and believes.>> So Christianity is crap? Only to those who are spiritually dead. That’s why you, as a married guy, can brag on here about seducing your physical therapist and see nothing wrong with that. <<Do not lend him the credilbility by engaging with him.>> My credibility doesn’t come from atheists - and certainly not from someone who brags in a chess forum about cheating on his wife. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 08:59 |
<<FLUX wrote (to me): <It absolutely is your religion. There’s no other explanation for your blind allegiance to it and your overlooking its numerous flaws.> This is so utterly ridiculous. Who are you to claim that? Have you any idea of my credentials in science?>> Your “credentials” in science are meaningless! I’m interested in the quality of your thoughts and your argumentation. This is why you and your ilk seek to rule the roost - based on your “office politics” and your ‘“credentials.” I’m demanding.something a little more. Prove to me that your “intellect” and “scientific argument” are worthy of respect. I have no respect for office politics! I have respect for real intellectual gravitas! <<Are they based on my 'religion'? What are you, except for a copier of thoughts by others that happen to fit your extreme interpretation of Christianity, which is not shared by the vast majority of Christians in the world?>> I’m a mainstream Christian, and, rather than paraphrase other Christians’ thoughts as my own, I choose to quote them directly. Sure, I could paraphrase their thoughts and pass them off as my own, but I’m too honest to do that. <<I hope you find happiness in your life.>> I hope you find Jesus Christ. Because you need Him. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 10:02 |
<< Stal He a narcissistic petty ignorant little man with a chip on his shoulder tge suze of Saturn. Ignore him. That’s what I’ve determined to do.>> Then, less than an hour later… <<Stal Fanatic, bigot, lunatic, arrogant and ignorant. All fit. I’ve determined not to read his club anymore.>> Then, less than an hour later… <<Stal Classic One thing about Andrew. He speaks ‘his’ truth. Sadly, he’s delusional>> Then, about 90 minutes later… <<Anyway Let him scream into the void. His stupidity and morally bankrupt and perverted views will fade like a bad case of dysentery. Just wipe thoroughly and turn on the fan to remove the last vestiges of the stink.>> Someone doesn’t understand what ignore means! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 13:05 |
Here’s the first: <<1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. Demonstrably false, in that we have demonstrated it to be false. The ability to digest nylon is a novel trait entirely absent in an original population of microbes but evident in subsequent generations. In non biological eamples crystals grow, demonstrating self organizing principles of matter. If snowflakes can form spontaneously, how are more complex arrangements prohibited?>> Here’s the response: “Nylon-Eating Bacteria and Evolutionary Progress BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 2008 Bacteria capable of metabolizing nylon were discovered in the 1970s. Nylon is a man-made substance that was developed in the 20th century. Since bacteria had not been exposed to it before then, could their new capacity to consume nylon positively demonstrate evolutionary progress? Evolution (also known as macroevolution) is typically described as a natural process that generates new biological structures from less ordered material, such that (given time, selection of fitter individuals in a population, and mutations) ‘simple’ creatures like bacteria are transformed into complex organisms like birds. This process implies a developmental history of life that is incompatible with that described in the Bible, which portrays the creation of fully-formed life (Genesis 1:11-27). On the other hand, adaptation (or microevolution) describes the capacity of organisms to undergo limited changes over several generations in order to make better use of, or survive better in, different environments. Creation scientists agree that God’s creatures were given the potential to adapt to different environments, but they propose that these adaptations have natural limits. Adaptations in response to environmental changes are observed in nature, but evolution is not. Many supporters of evolutionary theory have claimed that nylon-eating bacteria strongly demonstrate the kind of evolution that can create new cellular structures, new cells, and new organisms. However, examining only the apparent, visible beneficial trait can be misleading. Recent research into the genes behind these traits indicates that no evolution has taken place. In fact, the genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation. The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA. This gene, prior to its mutation, coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry. Thus, after the mutation, the new EII protein was able to interact with both circular and straightened-out nylon. This is a clear example of a loss of specification of the original enzyme. It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it. This degeneration of a protein-eating protein required both the specially-shaped protein and the pre-existence of its gene. The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does not explain the origin of that gene. One cannot build a lock by damaging pre-existing locks. Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation), not macroevolution. Science continues to reveal, though, how benevolent is our Creator God, who permits bacteria to benefit from degradation, and man also to benefit from bacteria that can recycle synthetic waste back into the environment.” www.icr.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 13:26 |
<<5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms required for evolution to be true. Demonstrably false. The horse series, elephant series, whale series. Let's think about legged cetaceans. Why on God's green Earth would a fiat creator god make whales with legs? "Let us give unto evolutionary scientists all the transition species their hearts desire, and take a big old dump on creationists," spoke the Lord Almighty. I mean, come on!>> One thing an evolutionist will never do is state the exact number of transitional fossils that exist and identify each one by name, date found and location found. Instead, the evolutionist hides in ambiguity, hoping that saying “whale series,” “horse series” and “elephant series” will be sufficient to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Well, “whale series” isn’t a transitional fossil. “Horse series” isn’t a transitional fossil. And “elephant series” isn’t a transitional fossil. State the exact number of transitional fossils that exist along with each one’s name, date it was found and location it was found. I won’t hold my breath. And remember what Darwin said: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Things haven’t improved for Darwin since. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Sep-21, 13:37 |
Saying entropy can be reversed through the actions of an intelligent being (or beings) is the same as entropy being reversed naturally and by blind chance is ridiculous. That reminds me of the guy who said setting up chess pieces on their correct squares proved the Second Law of Thermodynamics could be violated. I mean, come on. Sell that somewhere else, Suzie. |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
