Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Just Doesn't Make Sense


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
180 replies to this topic

#81 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:45 AM

Upon reviewing the text it occurs to me that jesus says "Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake." which christians often take as a fulfilled prophecy about the persecution of the apostles. Do you not take it that way? Since, if it is, it would make their generation "this" generation. He also tells them (seemingly personally) not to be deceived by false prophets etc. This can be interpreted different ways, but if I heard someone say to me "don't let x politician fool you" I wouldn't take it as "don't let x politician fool your decendants from 2,000+ years from now". That, to me, is a big stretch.


Only to one who has a mind prejudiced by sin and rejection of the Lord.

Example in answer: Jesus told the pharisees: "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Was he telling those wicked men (who eventually crucified Him) that they were saved? Was He inferring that they were Christians?

You know the answer to that. He was merely speaking in an inclusive 'to all who believe' manner. But in like manner this approach to spiritual truth applies to the people of whom Jesus was speaking in your above quote. Almost all of the disciples of Jesus were dead when John wrote Revelation...but unlike YOU...John didn't toss out what Jesus prophesied and reject God just because the prophecy was not fufilled by A.D. 96 when he wrote the last book of the Bible.

#82 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:54 PM

Press the quote button. You're not quoting otherwise there would be a quote box, (except for the post above, I think this is the only one with a quote?)

If you want to respond to specific points do what I do and break it up within the quote box with numbers.

What do you mean break it up in the quote box with numbers? Just hit quote quote quote and then copy/paste the quoted bits in?

#83 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:56 PM

No problem:

(1) he was not being obnoxious and (2) He didn't say 'gotcha' O imaginative one.

The man you're posting to is one of the nicest persons on this board and he is anything but obnoxious. The truth is that you have an attitude towards Christians who pin-point your mistakes and failures in logic.



Attitude. You come here with bad attitude and make statements that we have debated many times with many skeptics and you think we should just blindly accept what you post as if you were the first one to come up with that stuff.

Did you really think you could come to this Christian website and not be confronted with the gospel truth...part of which is that God is Creator and he created the world just the way He said He did in Genesis?

Still waiting for you to quote me telling someone not to do something I have done. Instead you are just arguing with what I've said. The accusation is hypocrisy, not that you don't agree with me. Try again.

#84 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 12:58 PM

Only to one who has a mind prejudiced by sin and rejection of the Lord.

Example in answer: Jesus told the pharisees: "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."

Was he telling those wicked men (who eventually crucified Him) that they were saved? Was He inferring that they were Christians?

You know the answer to that. He was merely speaking in an inclusive 'to all who believe' manner. But in like manner this approach to spiritual truth applies to the people of whom Jesus was speaking in your above quote. Almost all of the disciples of Jesus were dead when John wrote Revelation...but unlike YOU...John didn't toss out what Jesus prophesied and reject God just because the prophecy was not fufilled by A.D. 96 when he wrote the last book of the Bible.

I'm honestly not going to respond to anything else you have to say if you insist on making personal insults against not just me but all non-believers every time I try to have a reasonable discussion with you.

Where are the moderators on this forum? If I were making hateful generalizations about how foolish and evil not some but all christians are, I'm pretty sure I'd be blocked from the site.

#85 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:07 PM

I'm honestly not going to respond to anything else you have to say if you insist on making personal insults against not just me but all non-believers every time I try to have a reasonable discussion with you.

Where are the moderators on this forum? If I were making hateful generalizations about how foolish and evil not some but all christians are, I'm pretty sure I'd be blocked from the site.


O.K. The truth is you've been lying your way through this debate in the first place while pointing the finger at us.

#86 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:24 PM

Still waiting for you to quote me telling someone not to do something I have done. Instead you are just arguing with what I've said. The accusation is hypocrisy, not that you don't agree with me. Try again.


I don't need to try again, sir. I told the truth in the first place. You're welcome to post others now.

#87 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 01:55 PM

O.K. The truth is you've been lying your way through this debate in the first place while pointing the finger at us.

Quote any lie I've told please.

#88 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:05 PM

Que???

Then you don't believe that rabbits were around when the dinosaurs were on alive?

#89 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:58 PM

No problem:

(1) he was not being obnoxious and (2) He didn't say 'gotcha' O imaginative one.

The man you're posting to is one of the nicest persons on this board and he is anything but obnoxious. The truth is that you have an attitude towards Christians who pin-point your mistakes and failures in logic.



Attitude. You come here with bad attitude and make statements that we have debated many times with many skeptics and you think we should just blindly accept what you post as if you were the first one to come up with that stuff.

Did you really think you could come to this Christian website and not be confronted with the gospel truth...part of which is that God is Creator and he created the world just the way He said He did in Genesis?


I thought this already solved the matter, how can you debate against what you wrote?

#90 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:33 PM

I thought this already solved the matter, how can you debate against what you wrote?

I assume you're talking to me, but don't get what you're trying to say.

#91 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:44 PM

I assume you're talking to me, but don't get what you're trying to say.


Read the quote provided

#92 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:47 PM

Read the quote provided

Yeah, I read it before. How can he debate with what he wrote? What? And I responded to that comment. He is saying I have an attitude problem - how many times have I made negative generalizations against christians?

Feel free to quote even one if you can find one.

He refuses to respond to me without making general insults against atheists despite being asked several times.

#93 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:48 PM

"Cows, horses and rabbits were, and are, running around around when coelacanths were, and are, existing, and yet they don't seem to appear in the same layer."

And your argument is that rabbits do not fossilize because they have a different environment than sea creatures. Which is silly since rabbits do fossilize and we have 55 million year old rabbit skeletons.


That is NOT my argument!! Where on earth did I say that rabbits don't fossilize??

In one of my first posts to you I told you to re-read my posts, and I did this hoping you would be a little more careful to see what is being said.

You doing so saves me the bother of having to constantly correct you. So my advice is to stop scurrying around trying to get involved in so many threads at once, and instead focus your efforts on the ones you can invest a little more thought into.

#94 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:05 AM

I listed several possible interpretations, some in-line with jesus being infallible, others not in line with it and concluded that any interpretation would be speculative and that I could not know for certain what the passage meant or whether it was evidence for or against a particular worldview... So you cherry-pick out one intrepretation and argue against it derisively as though I asserted it as the "true" interpretation.

I'm getting really sick of people on this forum arguing against things I haven't said, have said the exact opposite of, or obnoxiously shoving in my face like I'm an idiot something I just pointed out (politely) to them.

Does anybody actually READ what an atheist says on this forum? Or just glance at it and then proceed to attack the atheist.


Well if you READ the post you quoted here you would see that I ALSO listed possibilities, such as "d) that I have missunderstood what you are saying", which is fairly easy to do when you submit a verse that is supposed to support the "seemingly geometrically impossible" events in the Bible and then throw out a couple of "interpretations" that don't make sense.

Are you intentionally tring to be vague?

#95 Nash

Nash

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Harare

Posted 14 November 2012 - 01:05 AM

Back to the intent of the person who started this forum
-No, evolution does not make sense
-The arguments against creation are a matter of faith (or lack thereof) not science
-NO, there are no inconsistencies in the bible- for a book that was written over such a long time, its the most consistent book with one central theme
-There is just too much historical and archaeological evidence that supports biblical accounts for it to be mere coincidence
- If critics once thought certain biblical accounts are mere legend and then archaeology proves the bible to be right, is that not reason for us to believe the bible is true? A simple example is critics used to say the amalekites never existed, but archaeologists discovered an amalekite library. Is it not rational to believe that its the skeptics who are wrong?
-The fossil record is a collection of bones and fossils from which people are writing a story, which is subject to individual interpretation and variation. The Bible is a consistent story, and archaeology + history have been proving the accuracy of the story over and over in the skeptics' face!
-Basing on the above its more sensible to believe an account for which you are discovering the evidence, than a story based on the imagination of some people.

#96 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:40 AM

That is NOT my argument!! Where on earth did I say that rabbits don't fossilize??

In one of my first posts to you I told you to re-read my posts, and I did this hoping you would be a little more careful to see what is being said.

You doing so saves me the bother of having to constantly correct you. So my advice is to stop scurrying around trying to get involved in so many threads at once, and instead focus your efforts on the ones you can invest a little more thought into.

You said that we don't find rabbits in the cambrian because that period "seems to reflect an environment that is quite hostile to rabbits (i.e. a marine environment)". The major flaw in your thinking is that there were land areas and sea areas in the cambrian, there were just no multi-cellular organisms on the land for most of it.

#97 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:47 AM

Back to the intent of the person who started this forum
-No, evolution does not make sense
-The arguments against creation are a matter of faith (or lack thereof) not science
-NO, there are no inconsistencies in the bible- for a book that was written over such a long time, its the most consistent book with one central theme
-There is just too much historical and archaeological evidence that supports biblical accounts for it to be mere coincidence
- If critics once thought certain biblical accounts are mere legend and then archaeology proves the bible to be right, is that not reason for us to believe the bible is true? A simple example is critics used to say the amalekites never existed, but archaeologists discovered an amalekite library. Is it not rational to believe that its the skeptics who are wrong?
-The fossil record is a collection of bones and fossils from which people are writing a story, which is subject to individual interpretation and variation. The Bible is a consistent story, and archaeology + history have been proving the accuracy of the story over and over in the skeptics' face!
-Basing on the above its more sensible to believe an account for which you are discovering the evidence, than a story based on the imagination of some people.

This is what creationists do, it is not allowed in science. Specifically relying on abductive reasoning to reach a conclusion. Creationists look at evidence, think "how could the flood or x biblical event explain this", and then whatever pops into their head they preach as gospel. That is where science begins, not where it ends. A scientist also says "how could I explain this?" But after some hair-brained idea pops into their head they say "how can I test my hypothesis"? They then predict something that must be true if their hypothesis is correct or can't be true if it's not and see if their prediction is accurate, either by a lab experiment or by predicting something no one has ever observed or discovered.

As I said in the other thread (which was ignored by everyone) archeopteryx wasn't considered solid evidence of evolution because scientists sat around speculating about it - it was considered solid evidence for evolution because darwin specifically predicted it's existence two years prior, what traits it would have, and explained why if it was not discovered his model of how birds' wings evolved was impossible.

#98 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:00 AM

That is NOT my argument!! Where on earth did I say that rabbits don't fossilize??

In one of my first posts to you I told you to re-read my posts, and I did this hoping you would be a little more careful to see what is being said.

You doing so saves me the bother of having to constantly correct you. So my advice is to stop scurrying around trying to get involved in so many threads at once, and instead focus your efforts on the ones you can invest a little more thought into.


Good for you, Uppsala. But he isn't here on EFF to 'invest a little more thought'. He isn't 'thinking' at all except as he can use his atheist scattergun to shoot at everybody and everything in sight...namely his utter rejection of the Creator who made all things as revealed in His Word.

At your discretion, friend, but I won't answer him any longer. He dissed or outright ignored all the documentation I gave him in answer to his positions.

#99 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:09 AM

Quote any lie I've told please.


How about this one: "I'm honestly not going to respond to anything else you have to say if you insist on making personal insults against not just me but all non-believers every time I try to have a reasonable discussion with you."

I say you are a sinner before the Lord and you need to repent of turning your back on Him and for attacking His precious Word.

Bye. I'm done here.

#100 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:37 AM

How about this one: "I'm honestly not going to respond to anything else you have to say if you insist on making personal insults against not just me but all non-believers every time I try to have a reasonable discussion with you."

I say you are a sinner before the Lord and you need to repent of turning your back on Him and for attacking His precious Word.

Bye. I'm done here.

You replied to a very respectfully offered, non-hostile opinion with "Only to one who has a mind prejudiced by sin and rejection of the Lord." and when asked prior to that to not make bigoted negative generalizations about non-believers you replied "Truthful generalizations...not bigoted ones."

You being christian doesn't make being a bigot any less hurtful or small minded, nor does it make ad hominem attacks a valid form of debate.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users