Jesus died for the world's sins, so why no change?
-
Navaros — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 09:30 AM)
You don't care to address your erroneous statements about God violating free will and proving himself to the ungodly then?
I never made any statement that God did anything ungodly, and I also never said that God never violates Free Will. So you seem to be presenting another false premise in the words of yours that I just quoted.
Cyanobacteria are the Earth's oldest fossils from 3.5 billion years ago
Bull crap.
You don't know
they are from "3.5 billion years ago." You merely
assume so
because your fellow darwinists have also assumed so, and then arbitrarily proclaimed their assumptions as "the truth"exactly like you are doing in the statement I've just quoted.
Feel free to google the Archean and Proterozoic Periods and Cyanobacteria and you can actually see from the fossil record how life on Earth evolved from them.
Those darwinist jargon terms you mentioned are words darwinists arbitrarily fabricated to give their myth labels. Those labels do not inherently exist within reality.
I am sure I could google lots of darwinist propaganda which communicates the myth you are espousing. But if I did so, that just means I'd be observing
storytelling about evolution
, not evolution itself. Your statement, "you can actually see [evolution]" is highly ambiguous. What you mean by that is not clear. Please explain in precise detail how you justify your equation of
observing darwinist storytelling about evolution
with
observing evolution itself
.
These things are known to us and can be observed
That's a false premise. You are using the phrase "these things" to conflate actual observable objects within reality (i.e. fossils) with your
unobservable, darwinist-biased assumptions
about those same objects (i.e. statements like "they are 3.5 billion years old"). Your assumptions cannot be observed. You believe in them by faith alone. And to avoid admitting that truth of the unscientific & faith-based nature of your beliefs, you attempt to pull the wool over everyone else's eyes and propagate your myth by playing those shady conflation games that I've just outlined. The continuation of your religious mythology
depends
on most people not being able to notice your shady conflation of unobservable faith-based assumptions with observable objects within reality.
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 11:16 AM)
I never made any statement that God did anything ungodly, and I also never said that God never violates Free Will. So you seem to be presenting another false premise in the words of yours that I just quoted.
Is your reading just piss poor or do you do this to avoid answering for your errors. Read it again, fool
You don't care to address your erroneous statements about God violating free will and proving himself to the ungodly then?
And he obviously has revealed himself to the ungodly before
God revealed himself and his power to the ungodly Pharaoh and the Egyptians with the plagues.
God revealed himself to the ungodly Babylonian king Belshazzar by a large hand writing on a wall.
God revealed himself to the ungodly Philistine king Abimelech in a dream.
Even the Resurrected Jesus revealed himself to the ungodly Saul of Tarsus.
Etc
Bull crap. You don't know they are from "3.5 billion years ago." You merely assume so because your fellow darwinists have also assumed so, and then arbitrarily proclaimed their assumptions as "the truth"exactly like you are doing in the statement I've just quoted.
Because radioactive material of the same type decays at the same rate. Measuring the level of this material allows us to figure out how old things are.
If you want I can explain how radiation works, but it'd be a long post and I'm not sure you'd read it at all, let alone read it right
Those darwinist jargon terms you mentioned are words darwinists arbitrarily fabricated to give their myth labels. Those labels do not inherently exist within reality.
I am sure I could google lots of darwinist propaganda which communicates the myth you are espousing. But if I did so, that just means I'd be observing storytelling about evolution, not evolution itself. Your statement, "you can actually see [evolution]" is highly ambiguous. What you mean by that is not clear. Please explain in precise detail how you justify your equation of observing darwinist storytelling about evolution with observing evolution itself.
Translates to "I am an imbecille and must deny at all costs that evolution or anything associated to it is even slightly true"
unobservable, darwinist-biased assumptions
Actually we have witnessed evolution in action. So much so that Andy Schafely from conservapedia got into an email war over why one of the labs wouldn't give him a sample to test (because he didn't have a sterile lab to work with) and spent his time trying to twist words in the reports that this lab wrote.
In the end you creationist shills are a joke. Dover wasn't enough of an ass whipping, you continue to get your ass spanked all over the place
Panzer vor! -
uther8 — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 01:48 PM)
unobservable, darwinist-biased assumptions
This is always a good onethey make it sound as though god is observable, when clearly there is nothing but contradictory hersay, edited into book form with no contemporary records of the events described therein.
Their logic iswell, ironic isn't the word..
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free - Goethe -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 06:57 AM)
I never made any statement that God did anything ungodly, and I also never said that God never violates Free Will.
Didn't you say this?
No, He cannot - unless He chose to violate Free Will - because there is no possible way to "make his existence known"
He showed Himself to select godly people in the OT when He had good reasons to do so. He did not, however, show Himself to ungodly people out of a need to 'prove' Himself,
I was merely pointing out that God does violate free will and show himself to the ungodly to prove himself. It's all in the Bible, clear as day. You said God can't make his existence known unless he violates free will (which he's done) and that God didn't show himself to ungodly people (which he did).
Those darwinist jargon terms you mentioned are words darwinists arbitrarily fabricated to give their myth labels.
Just because you choose to not learn anything about the world and universe we live in does not mean those facts don't exist in our reality. That's the thing about scienceit's true whether or not you believe it. Unlike God.
Yes, we know how old the Earth is and yes, we do have fossilized bacteria from 3.5 billion years ago, and yes you can go observe these things for yourself. You cannot do that with God. -
Navaros — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 10:16 AM)
Didn't you say this?
Sure, but I when I comment about God not acting a lot of times in order so that he doesn't violate Free Will, I was talking about on a general/typical/usual/applicable the vast majority of the time basis. I was not, however, as you seem to be implying, stating that God
never
violates Free Will.
that God didn't show himself to ungodly people
You are citing examples of kings, i.e. influential men who ruled over tens of thousands of people. On the other hand, I was talking about the average joe schmo atheist who makes coffee at Starbucks and who expects God to come be his personal clown/dancing monkey and perform parlor magic tricks for him and also for everyone else in the world who is like him.
just because you choose to not learn anything about the world and universe
Let's see what God has to say about that:
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Ergo, God has affirmed me as knowledgeable and you as a hater of knowledge, wisdom, and instruction.
does not mean those facts don't exist in our reality
That statement reminds me of a hillary-style pivot that happens any time anyone asks it anything about its illegal use of email or about allegations that its husband raped women and it helped to silence those women. That quoted statement is hot air that does nothing to address the substance of my point, namely that you are illegitimately conflating your ilk's
stories about evolution
with evolution itself, and arbitrarily proclaiming your stories to be 'facts.'
That's the thing about scienceit's true whether or not you believe it.
That's another one of darwinists' standard shady conflation 101 tactics. You equate your faith-based belief system of darwinism with science, but science it is not. Science is by definition observable, testable, and repeatable. None of your belief system's outlandish claims are any of the above, and therefore they are not science. That is why you have utterly failed to provide any evidence of darwinists' outlandish claims in this thread - it doesn't exist. So your next-best recourse is to refer me to storytelling about evolution, pretend that it's the same thing as proof of evolution itself, and hope that I and also your other readers are too stupid to notice the difference.
we know how old the Earth
Bull crap. All your
alleged
ways of "knowing" those things are based on unprovable assumptions.
we do have fossilized bacteria from 3.5 billion years ago,
Bull crap again. That claim is also based on unprovable assumptions.
yes you can go observe these things for yourself.
Complete and utter bull crap that sounds like a whacky parody rather than a serious statement, LOL! So you have invented a time machine to go back 3.5 billion years and also an elixir of eternal life so that we can live long enough to observe your allegations?
"Science creates fictions to explain facts" Gilman -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 10:34 AM)
Sure, but I when I comment about God not acting a lot of times in order so that he doesn't violate Free Will, I was talking about on a general/typical/usual/applicable the vast majority of the time basis. I was not, however, as you seem to be implying, stating that God never violates Free Will.
Dodge
You are citing examples of kings, i.e. influential men who ruled over tens of thousands of people. On the other hand, I was talking about the average joe schmo atheist who makes coffee at Starbucks and who expects God to come be his personal clown/dancing monkey and perform parlor magic tricks for him.
Dodge
That statement reminds me of a hillary-style pivot that happens any time anyone asks it anything about its illegal use of email. That quoted statement is hot air that does nothing to address the substance of my point, namely that you are illegitimately conflating your ilk's stories about evolution with evolution itself, and arbitrarily proclaiming your stories to be 'facts.'
Nice pivot, Nav
That's another one of darwinists' standard shady conflation 101 tactics. You equate your faith-based belief system of darwinism with science, but science it is not. Science is by definition observable, testable, and repeatable. None of your belief system's outlandish claims are any of the above, and therefore they are not science. That is why you have utterly failed to provide any evidence of darwinists' outlandish claims in this thread - it doesn't exist. So your next-best recourse is to refer me to storytelling about evolution, pretend that it's the same thing as proof of evolution itself, and hope that I and also your other readers are too stupid to notice the difference.
It has been observed, and it's been shown to you, specifically, hundreds of times and you either stop posting or ignore it.
Otherwise we'd hear your opinion on peppered moths and nylon eating bacteria to name a few.
Bull crap. All your alleged ways of "knowing" those things are based on unprovable assumptions.
Actually based on mathmatics and the speed of light. You'd know this if you didn't play stupid all the time.
Bull crap again. That claim is also based on unprovable assumptions.
Based on radiometric dating which is quite accurate since we know the decay rate of radioactive particles.
We know Potassium-40 takes billions of years to decay because we can measure it's ongoing decay rate. Now if we find a sample that's been through 8 half lives then that means the sample is a billion years old. Whereas if we find one that's been through one half life it's only existed some ten years. You can even put this to the test to read radioactive decay by using a geiger that counts the amount of particles being released from a given sample. Case in point, the uranium test source on older civil defense geigers has gone through a half life or more, depending on the type, and now is much weaker than it was when the units were issued.
And thank the gods for that because the Russian dp-5's I have have check sources that are really hot (about 10 micro-sieverts. To put in perspective that's roughly an hour dosage. Over the course of a year living in a concrete or brick building you absorb 70 micro-sieverts), I can only imagine the consequences of people handling those sources 50 or 60 years ago
Complete and utter bull crap that sounds like a whacky parody rather than serious statement, LOL! So you have invented a time machine to go back 3.5 billion years and also an elixir of eternal life so that we can live long enough to observe your allegations?
"I refuse reality and substitute my own"
Amazing how navs can dump on types of science, yet takes advantage of them every day
Panzer vor! -
mamu2 — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 01:17 PM)
I was talking about on a general/typical/usual/applicable the vast majority of the time basis. I was not, however, as you seem to be implying, stating that God never violates Free Will.
The point is that God does and can violate peoples' free will, as evidenced by the Bible. So no one can say he wouldn't ever do it.
On the other hand, I was talking about the average joe schmo atheist who makes coffee at Starbucks and who expects God to come be his personal clown/dancing monkey and perform parlor magic tricks for him and also for everyone else in the world who is like him.
The point is that God appears to the ungodly to prove himself, as evidenced by the Bible. You claimed he doesn't, but he has. So no one can say he wouldn't ever do it.
You seem to claim a lot about God that doesn't mesh with what the Bible reveals about God.
And again, you not believing in evolution does not mean that it doesn't exist or isn't real. It exists whether or not you believe, and there is mountains of evidence for it. Evidence you can witness. Unlike God. -
Rumble_McSkirmish — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 01:36 PM)
And again, you not believing in evolution does not mean that it doesn't exist or isn't real. It exists whether or not you believe, and there is mountains of evidence for it. Evidence you can witness. Unlike God.
Allow me to add, if one has any background with goldfish you can see the history of evolution right there. Goldfish are decendents of a type of Chinese carp that was originally grey in color. The Chinese started breeding those that had evolutionary changes and displayed colors ill we have what is known as the common goldfish now.
Hell, we see the same in foods we eat like bananas, we see it in cats, dogs, fish, bacteria, insects, viruses, and we have the recorded observable records from these things.
Panzer vor! -
Rylant — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 01:55 PM)
I honestly don't understand why Religious people tend to be so threatened by the prospect of evolution. It's such a blatant insecurity. As somebody who is an atheist, can't religious people believe in God AND evolution? What if evolution was God's instrument of creation? I am pretty sure that the Bible doesn't explain in great detail how God supposedly created mankind, nor does it say that Evolution is a hoax. It's not like you have to choose; Science or God
Rylant -
bastasch8647 — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 03:00 PM)
why Religious people tend to be so threatened by the prospect of evolution. It's such a blatant insecurity.
But it isn't "religious people" who are threatened by evolution - it's only fundamentalists who think that Genesis' origin accounts are scientifically true, and must be taken literally. Non-fundies don't have a problem with it.
can't religious people believe in God AND evolution?
Most, in fact, do so believe. It's only fundies and those who have some weird axe to grind who deny evolution for theological reasons.