All I see is blah blah blah If you're going to misrepresent my views then I'm not going to respond to you. It really is just that simple. You've yet to accurately represent Creationism. You'd rather try to pin "Creationism" on a strawman and beat it up. Have at your little strawman. It has nothing to do with my beliefs and therefore I have no obligation to defend it. So as soon as you're ready to talk about my beliefs maybe we'll have a discussion. Just because you can fit the observed data doesn't mean your extrapolations are correct. Creationism has no issues with observed data and therefore by your logic the extrapolated inferences are also correct. Are you going to accept God now? But again, you don't want to defend the science based fairy tales. You'd rather talk about gravity. The world's most successful lies are based on truth.
Thank you, what a lovely suggestion. If only I could. Bu there are just so many things to do. One must make a living. One must care for others. And there are just so many lost and empty souls like yourself out there to consider, and, as well, to pray for. You shall be prayed for tonight, young man. Only He knows what effect if any such an endeavor might hold. Somehow I do not believe this. And the thing is I truly believe you do not either. But I do not waste my time wondering what will happen to me when I die. I fully know what will happen. It is you who does not know. And this is why you are obsessed with it, not I, not Christians. I am amazed that your words, so transparent to others, do not embolden you to self-searching, your anger turned outward is nothing more than a reflection of what is going on inwardly. My cup runneth over, yours sounds so empty. I will pray for you tonight. No doubt about it, ashes to ashes. My spirit, however, is an entirely different story.
Well, like Lennon said: "Whatever gets you through the night, is alright, is alright." But I would hardly consider shitting in the woods and wiping ones arse with pine-needles the fundamentals. The ones I refer to come from a far different age than the ones you refer to. The two are fundamentally different. The ones that you hanker to apparently stopped getting them through the night several thousand years ago.
Agreed. Where did I mention that? I was talking about ritual animal sacrifice. Everyone knows the value of a good burnt pig. Even the Lord was partial to a bit himself, until He changed His mind two thousand years ago
Yet you refuse to show where or how I misrepresent your views, instead dropping some vague harm and not addressing my arguments. You've yet to address anything I've said. You'd rather plug your ears and retreat into your little shell of "aint got no proofs, uh-uh," and refuse to respond. Show me the strawman, Kalvin. You can't, because the only strawman in this debate is your gross misrepresentation of my arguments. Address what I've said or show me the harm. You've failed to do either, and I will no longer accept that this is due to ignorance of the argument I present. Instead, I must believe that you refuse to address me because you are incapable of defending your arguments, or refuting mine. Maybe I'll consider it if you address my arguments. Well, you at least tried to get to something here. Fitting the observed data doesn't necessarily mean extrapolations are correct, but it does make them incredibly likely. The extrapolations of evolutionary theory match observed physical data better than any other theory and are much more likely to be correct. Look at my argument, Kalvin. If we directly observe the mechanism (which we do), and the extrapolations from applying that mechanism match observed evidence (which they do), the theory is almost certainly correct. Strawman. The extrapolated inferences are what have to match the data. Evolution's extrapolations do. Furthermore, you have failed to show the mechanism creationism uses (beyond some sort of 'whatever god wants' argument which can't be logically extrapolated to anything useful), nor have you shown how we can extrapolate from that mechanism. Until you do so, you can't even claim that creationism is analogous to evolutionary theory. Lastly, even if both have an observed mechanism, can logically extrapolate from that mechanism, and have extrapolations that are consistent with evidence, we apply the logical principle of parsimony and choose evolution as the better theory since creationism makes additional (and larger) assumptions. You'd rather talk about nothing because you can't defend the creationism based on bullshit. I've defended the science from every attack you've chosen to use while you haven't addressed my arguments in any way other than to throw out vague accusations of strawmen without showing me why they are strawmen. Then, you fail to address what my gravity argument actually says. My argument is that: We know the mechanism for gravity (which we do). We can extrapolate it to apply to things we can't directly measure (which we can). We can test those extrapolations via other physical evidence that is not necessarily measured or directly observed as 'gravity' (which we can). The extraplations fit physical evidence (which they do). Therefore, the extrapolations from the mechanism are probably correct. The same argument applies to evolution, no matter how much you want to ignore it. Creationism demonstrates that quite well, Kalvin. Kalvin - I think it's time that I stopped derailing this thread. If you want to continue this, we can make a new thread.
You actually were referring to an age, for if you'll note you expanded your fancy for the sacrificing of animals to an endemic of "science" as well. Nor did the "Lord change his mind two thousand years ago." Two thousand years ago heralded the Law of Christ and freedom from the Law of Moses which I assume you refer to per the prohibition of pork. The prohibition against pork occurred closer to three thousand years ago. Nor does the Lord ever change His mind. Rather He has changed periodically, throughout His divine relationship with man, his method of leading us towards salvation.
Geez Person. Do you enjoy wasting your time writting about nothing? Name an evolutionist observation that disproves Creationism. I'll give you a hint: gravity doesn't. It really is just that simple. Just give me one thing that science has directly observed that counters Creationism. Extrapolations are based on assumptions and are therefore faith based and do not prove or disprove anything. I think it's time you took a step back and stopped babbling. You cannot prove or disprove anything with assumptions. Give me a direct observation that science has made that disproves creationism.
Nope, I was referring to the Lord's previous penchant for animal - and human - sacrifices... in the Old Testament God loved a good ol' sacrificial offering. It pleased Him. I guess his conscience must've got to Him, cause the only sacrifice I know of in the New Testament was that of His only begotten Son - I mean, er, Himself.... who was His Son... no wait, it was Him as His Son... er... Holy Ghost? Holy Ghooooooooost? Well, He changed his mind five times when stating how many good men should be found in Sodom to save the city from destruction. Abraham was a hell of a negotiator.
He didn't change his mind about the number that were required to save the city. He hadn't locked in a number yet. When negotiating you don't start with a number that you have to have. You start higher so you have room to negotiate. If God really demanded X number of people there would have been no negotiation. He knew there weren't enough people to save the city anyway.
Imposter... A friend of mine, a very, very good friend, is sitting next to me. She found me at the computor and asked what I was doing so I showed her our little repartee. Her response is how petty you sound, how very, very petty. She is homosexual and a born again Christian. How does this fit into your nice little stereotype pro forma? You know so little of the Bible it amazes me you position yourself an expert. You know so little of the right, you know so little of the left, simply put, it seems you just simply know so little. You say God loves sacrifices of humans. I think you mean to say in the OT. For your convoluted syntax is hard to grasp. Let's see now: Hunh? Try and concentrate now. Then you confuse sacrifice completely and altogether by suggesting that the animal sacrifices of the OT, were somehow similar to the human sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Allow me to try and filter some of the murky flow from your confused mind to your petty mouth and set you somewhat straight. God commanded man in the OT to sacrifice animals onto Him. To His inestimable glory. Jesus in the NT sacrificed Himself unto us. Unto you. For us. And for you. The former was done to teach us obedience. The latter to save our very souls. Nor do I know of any circumstance in the Bible which suggests an animal simply volunteered for such treatment. This thread was begun because one false man who calls himself a preacher of the Most High has been spreading so much hatred in His Holy name, and in the guise of a man of God, that people of heart are saddened and confused and are questioning what this is all about. Your ignorant pettiness actually reflects this stupid man's arrogance. Well done mate. Incidentally... I enjoy a good smoked pig more than most. My favorite is applewood smoked. I like it just this side of raw and don't think very much of English breakfasts. I find them thin on content and not at all unlike your comments.
Yes, I admit that continuing my original comment about animal sacrifices in the Bible does seem petty. I just like to remind Christians that their religion started out as a tribe of animal sacrificers, that's all, and that their God occasionally used to love them to sacrifice their offsprings for Him. It's evidently not something they like to hear. Petty? Yes. I apologise. Must be tough living with all that sin in her veins. What stereotype? Where have I suggested that I have such a stereotype? Please retract that statement. I'll have you know, I would expect approximately 10% of Christians to be homosexual. Far fewer would be so open to declare it, I would expect - and your friend must be applauded for doing so. How can you even make a judgement on how much of the Bible I know about on what has gone before in this thread? An assumption based on the fact I am an atheist? I have read far more of the Bible than my "Christian" friends - but on no account would I call myself an "expert". Where have I declared as such? Stop making wild assumptions and calm down. I said God loved human sacrifice - past tense - yes, in the OT. But He seemed to change His mind in the NT. The only sacrifice in the NT was that of His son/Him. It is a loose comparison; I am in no way putting the sacrifices of humans and animals in the OT on a par with the huge sacrifice of Jesus, so you can jump off your horse any time now and unknot your knickers. Now who's being petty?
I think it's too late for that. You posted several times after this one. What is it now?? About 26?? Oh well, it's only gone down a few points from when you started. That's not too bad then. Col
haha thats really mean.. Col, but its true he did post several times after that. I have been keeping track of the posts.