Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

What evidence contradicts the Bible, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.

Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...

I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.

 

[Hollie]

Millions of the smartest people in the world advocate the fact that the world is at least older than 6000. I don't know but given the facts I vote for the scientists.

I vote for the interpretation of the Bible that the 6000 year timeline refers to the Hebrew Lineage, and the 6 Days of Creation refers to 6 Ages or Epochs (not literal earth days).

Would you vote for a political candidate you don't agree with?
Then why vote for a Biblical interpretation you disagree with?

Creationists then say: But it's highly unlikely the world was created from a simultaneous explosion into what it is today...

My reply: Well it is highly unlikely that the single specific sperm cell that fertilized the egg within your mother's womb was able to make the creature that you call yourself today yet it happened didn't it?

Creationists I know make a similar argument as you, about the chances of random DNA creating a human being instead of some kind of higher plan or intentional order.

So are you OK when they use a similar argument in favor of their views over yours?

While you may wish to rewrite the bibles as many fundies do, the bad news is that you don’t get a vote on which is the true definition of gawds. The gawds have left many contradictory conceptions of what they expect people to accept. Whether a single one of the many conceptions of gawds is true, something completely different, or quite obviously, they're all man-made, you simply have to deal with it. You don’t really get a vote in the matter and it’s not a majority rules issue.

Hey-Zeus as a savior says something quite different from what competing religions claim. So why do you accept that claim (i.e., that he is your savior) but by implication reject other claims to gawds which are just as authoritative (i.e., that many people believe it)?

If the alleged "deeper meanings" within any of the various competing religious / gawds are only accessible to personal interpretation, his do you know you have chosen the correct gawds? If you can't personally state your own beliefs and reasons for holding them, what merit is there in holding your beliefs? If you are consigned to accepting the portions of your religion that are acceptable to the religious authority or religious sect that you would prefer to believe, how do you choose that authority / sect except by the declarative "well mist people I know believe that…" If it's only by virtue of an outside authority that one can be secure in one's faith, how do you avoid error in selecting your authority?

Secondly, I'm familiar with the ignorant and false claim by Christian fundies regarding "random DNA". That is an argument typically "quite-mined" from charlatans at Christian creationist ministries which is lapped up by fundies who are science illiterate.

The principle of fitness for survival refutes the nonsensical "random DNA" nonsense.

Lastly, why do creationist need to constantly re-write their bibles to avoid the errors and inconsistencies such as "days" becoming "epochs"?

 

[Hollie]

There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.

Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...

I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.

Delete the adverb "sometimes" and your post is corrected.

Burn in hell, sinner. It's the will of the gawds.

 

[Hollie]

How long was the first day?

you'd have to clarify, were there days when the galaxy was forming? was time even a factor during the formation ?
maybe this will be easier.

God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day). God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.

YouTube

 

[LittleNipper]

I can see that the ice age was a direct result of the FLOOD and that it happened faster than uniformitarians presently understand.

Okay. Show me some links to demonstrable evidence that supports this.

First, I'd like you to see some interesting Flood evidence: Ice Age Floods-Discover Glacial Lake Missoula and Lake Bonneville

Now, this is a uniformitarian site that believes in hundreds of millions of years; however, see it for what it is ----- FLOOD evidence that has been attributied to an Ice Age. I see it as Flood damage...

Note the rings formed by one small recent dam burst:

 

[Youwerecreated]

Millions of the smartest people in the world advocate the fact that the world is at least older than 6000. I don't know but given the facts I vote for the scientists.

I vote for the interpretation of the Bible that the 6000 year timeline refers to the Hebrew Lineage, and the 6 Days of Creation refers to 6 Ages or Epochs (not literal earth days).

Would you vote for a political candidate you don't agree with?
Then why vote for a Biblical interpretation you disagree with?

Creationists then say: But it's highly unlikely the world was created from a simultaneous explosion into what it is today...

My reply: Well it is highly unlikely that the single specific sperm cell that fertilized the egg within your mother's womb was able to make the creature that you call yourself today yet it happened didn't it?

Creationists I know make a similar argument as you, about the chances of random DNA creating a human being instead of some kind of higher plan or intentional order.

So are you OK when they use a similar argument in favor of their views over yours?

While you may wish to rewrite the bibles as many fundies do, the bad news is that you don’t get a vote on which is the true definition of gawds. The gawds have left many contradictory conceptions of what they expect people to accept. Whether a single one of the many conceptions of gawds is true, something completely different, or quite obviously, they're all man-made, you simply have to deal with it. You don’t really get a vote in the matter and it’s not a majority rules issue.

Hey-Zeus as a savior says something quite different from what competing religions claim. So why do you accept that claim (i.e., that he is your savior) but by implication reject other claims to gawds which are just as authoritative (i.e., that many people believe it)?

If the alleged "deeper meanings" within any of the various competing religious / gawds are only accessible to personal interpretation, his do you know you have chosen the correct gawds? If you can't personally state your own beliefs and reasons for holding them, what merit is there in holding your beliefs? If you are consigned to accepting the portions of your religion that are acceptable to the religious authority or religious sect that you would prefer to believe, how do you choose that authority / sect except by the declarative "well mist people I know believe that…" If it's only by virtue of an outside authority that one can be secure in one's faith, how do you avoid error in selecting your authority?

Secondly, I'm familiar with the ignorant and false claim by Christian fundies regarding "random DNA". That is an argument typically "quite-mined" from charlatans at Christian creationist ministries which is lapped up by fundies who are science illiterate.

The principle of fitness for survival refutes the nonsensical "random DNA" nonsense.

Lastly, why do creationist need to constantly re-write their bibles to avoid the errors and inconsistencies such as "days" becoming "epochs"?

Do you understand that people who wish to attack the bible look through the various bibles to find these contradictions ? as language evolves there are better terms to be used.

I posted the Jewish bible with the Hebrew writing, enough said.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...

I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.

Delete the adverb "sometimes" and your post is corrected.

Burn in hell, sinner. It's the will of the gawds.

Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.

 

[LittleNipper]

you'd have to clarify, were there days when the galaxy was forming? was time even a factor during the formation ?
maybe this will be easier.

God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day). God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.

YouTube

Ted Nugent - Uncle Ted on Gun Control

The point is that where the Federal government defines what everyone will do, rights are taken away from its citizens everywhere to decide how things will be done. And if the Federal Government is confused and agnostic and a spend thrift, the country becomes agnostic and confused and poor. Where the Federal Government mandates education, the students are limited to what the government believes is a resonable education and a proper mode of study. Everything is tied together with how the Government deals with God and Creationism. It does not stop there. The government will eventually want to decide what people believe --- Gun ownership is bad, Abortion is a good example of population control, Homosexual marriage is equal with heterosexual marriage, all opinion is equally valid unless it not accepted by the government....

 

[Hollie]

I vote for the interpretation of the Bible that the 6000 year timeline refers to the Hebrew Lineage, and the 6 Days of Creation refers to 6 Ages or Epochs (not literal earth days).

Would you vote for a political candidate you don't agree with?
Then why vote for a Biblical interpretation you disagree with?

P

Creationists I know make a similar argument as you, about the chances of random DNA creating a human being instead of some kind of higher plan or intentional order.

So are you OK when they use a similar argument in favor of their views over yours?

While you may wish to rewrite the bibles as many fundies do, the bad news is that you don’t get a vote on which is the true definition of gawds. The gawds have left many contradictory conceptions of what they expect people to accept. Whether a single one of the many conceptions of gawds is true, something completely different, or quite obviously, they're all man-made, you simply have to deal with it. You don’t really get a vote in the matter and it’s not a majority rules issue.

Hey-Zeus as a savior says something quite different from what competing religions claim. So why do you accept that claim (i.e., that he is your savior) but by implication reject other claims to gawds which are just as authoritative (i.e., that many people believe it)?

If the alleged "deeper meanings" within any of the various competing religious / gawds are only accessible to personal interpretation, his do you know you have chosen the correct gawds? If you can't personally state your own beliefs and reasons for holding them, what merit is there in holding your beliefs? If you are consigned to accepting the portions of your religion that are acceptable to the religious authority or religious sect that you would prefer to believe, how do you choose that authority / sect except by the declarative "well mist people I know believe that…" If it's only by virtue of an outside authority that one can be secure in one's faith, how do you avoid error in selecting your authority?

Secondly, I'm familiar with the ignorant and false claim by Christian fundies regarding "random DNA". That is an argument typically "quite-mined" from charlatans at Christian creationist ministries which is lapped up by fundies who are science illiterate.

The principle of fitness for survival refutes the nonsensical "random DNA" nonsense.

Lastly, why do creationist need to constantly re-write their bibles to avoid the errors and inconsistencies such as "days" becoming "epochs"?

Do you understand that people who wish to attack the bible look through the various bibles to find these contradictions ? as language evolves there are better terms to be used.

I posted the Jewish bible with the Hebrew writing, enough said.

How sad for creationist.

Do you not understand that Judaism is not christianity? The different spelling should have been a clue. If you need Judaism to fill in the (gawds of the) gaps left by christianity, why not convert to Judaism?

Do you correct the bibles with passages from the Hindu scriptures, also?

How strange that you need to steal material from other religious to prop-up your religion.

More than enough said.

 

[Youwerecreated]

God, through the Bible, frames what is meant by "day" in terms of what would become the standard for a day for Adam (...and the evening and the morning was the first.. second... third... day). God created for 12 hours and then rested 12 hours.

YouTube

Ted Nugent - Uncle Ted on Gun Control

Uncle Ted don't care for liberal agendas.

 

[Hollie]

I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.

Delete the adverb "sometimes" and your post is corrected.

Burn in hell, sinner. It's the will of the gawds.

Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.

Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles.

It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Delete the adverb "sometimes" and your post is corrected.

Burn in hell, sinner. It's the will of the gawds.

Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.

Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles.

It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.

From this point on I will ignore your posts you're simply to irrational to have a rational conversation with. For your information if you do some research you will find that Hades,Sheol,and Gahenna represent Hell and through careful interpretation they are referring to the Grave,not a place of torment. There is torment mentioned but,but there is no literal torment ,it is a metaphor dear. People have taken the fires and torment of Hell as literal but througfh study of the scriptures you can see that is not what is meant.

 

[LittleNipper]

YouTube

Ted Nugent - Uncle Ted on Gun Control

Uncle Ted don't care for liberal agendas.

He certainly does not pull any punches. He seems openly honest and at least more reasonable, than someone who imagins that if govenrmant makes blank laws that evil people will not find a way to do evil things. It is the honest person who gets hurt. The honest person pays the taxes too support the results of the evil person's evil habits.

 

[LittleNipper]

Delete the adverb "sometimes" and your post is corrected.

Burn in hell, sinner. It's the will of the gawds.

Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.

Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles.

It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.

Hell means different things in the Bible. One must read the particular verses/chapter in context. Yes, I know that sometimes hell does mean the grave, sometimes a garbage dump and sometimes eternal separation from God. Hell is the timeless place people go who never wanted anything to do with God. They get their heart's desire. The issue is that everyone will see the glory of God one day and have a glimpse of heaven. But not all will be allowed to remain. That is hell.

 

[Hollie]

Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.

Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles.

It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.

Hell means different things in the Bible. One must read the particular verses/chapter in context. Yes, I know that sometimes hell does mean the grave, sometimes a garbage dump and sometimes eternal separation from God. Hell is the timeless place people go who never wanted anything to do with God. They get their heart's desire. The issue is that everyone will see the glory of God one day and have a glimpse of heaven. But not all will be allowed to remain. That is hell.

As to opinions, you are entitled to define hell as you wish. As you noted, "hell" Is subject to interpretation of the particular verse / chapter. The interpretation is also a function of the interpreter which means that "hell" can be whatever one wishes it to be.

How convenient.

 

[Hollie]

Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.

Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles.

It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.

From this point on I will ignore your posts you're simply to irrational to have a rational conversation with. For your information if you do some research you will find that Hades,Sheol,and Gahenna represent Hell and through careful interpretation they are referring to the Grave,not a place of torment. There is torment mentioned but,but there is no literal torment ,it is a metaphor dear. People have taken the fires and torment of Hell as literal but througfh study of the scriptures you can see that is not what is meant.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You've made such idle threats before - that you will punish me for refuting your falsified "quote-mining" and your cutting and pasting from creationist ministries.

I have every intention to hold you accountable for your lies and will respond as needed to correct and refute your comments.

I must! I saw a bird this morning flying toward the east. It was a sign from the gawds.

 

[Hollie]

Your interpretation of Hell is not mine.

Creationist have as many interpretations of hell as they do verses in their bibles.

It's whatever you want it to be for conveniences' sake.

From this point on I will ignore your posts you're simply to irrational to have a rational conversation with. For your information if you do some research you will find that Hades,Sheol,and Gahenna represent Hell and through careful interpretation they are referring to the Grave,not a place of torment. There is torment mentioned but,but there is no literal torment ,it is a metaphor dear. People have taken the fires and torment of Hell as literal but througfh study of the scriptures you can see that is not what is meant.

Your interpretation of hell is in conflict with the definition offered by Little Nipper.

Shall we assume that you are both one-half correct, divide by two, and bifurcate the rest?

 

[UltimateReality]

Does this show contradiction?
ON TEMPTATION
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." -- James 1:13

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." -- Genesis 22:1

Abarham is not, was not... and never will be, GOD "for GOD cannot be tempted WITH EVIL, NEITHER tempteth him he any man"... There is a difference between "test" and "tempt", again... in various translation of original text... at the time of translation, the terms were quite inner-changeable. An examination of a complete English dictionary will verify this. Note that some of the meanings carry positive connotations, while some carry negative connotations. This is a fact and not debatable. And yes... God did TEST Abraham. As is and has been true throughout history and various cultures... James being of the Roman era, Abraham of the "Creation era", the terminology although still in use was used in context as a test of Abraham's dedication to GOD and not a temptation to do evil for a purpose against good and GOD. Also... you will find explanation of the terms and differences in the explanations within the writings themselves... through Concordance you can fit the statements and separate the differences in meaning... if you so desire... OR... you can completely omit such information if it fits your agenda... which I have found that the original poster does on a regular basis... I guess you are supposed to take ANY written word, by any author and accept it as you understand it... discount of course that you may not understand any word in it... don't consult an encyclopedia or dictionary. Just take it at face value as the posting individual would like to present it. I find no contradiction here as with most of the so-called contradictions posted. And if he weren't so diametrically opposed to the study, I'm quite sure, with a little research, so that he might gain a better understanding of the subject matter he is so laxxed on... he himself might be amazed at actually understanding what is being presented... a GREAT deal better. Perhaps that poster will enlighten us again... by telling us... what did GOD promise Abraham as payment for his falling to the temptattion... for temptation... there has to be a reward. Satan tempted Christ... promising Him grand rewards, Eve was tempted by Satan in form of reward... she was to have her eyes opened... and become acknowledged in all things. So what was Abraham's reward in the temptation to be?

There have been many books written on Hermeneutics. Many modern Christian religions, and even more so uneducated atheists, have no understanding of this.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes, I know it has, and his two fallacious arguments are completely unconvincing. His first argument, which attempts to dismantle abiogenesis with probability theory, is an argument from ignorance, since he nor anybody else has the numbers to describe accurately something we are ignorant to. I've mentioned this numerous times yet you fail to adequately address. Instead you simply deny it and try to ridicule me for always calling out fallacies, without ever refuting my claims. Next, Meyers makes an inductive argument, claiming that because we are intelligent and wrote specifiable, digital code, DNA must also have an intelligent designer, being a code with apparently the same characteristics. It does not follow necessarily that DNA must also have had am intelligent designer. It is only a probabilistic determination, which is the major weakness of inductively derived conclusions. So, both prongs of Meyers argument are blatantly fallacious. An inductive argument isn't even formally valid. Try to actually address these charges instead of the usual sidestepping and ridiculing to get around these blatant facts. You seem so enamored by Meyers false credentials, that won't admit to yourself, the possibility that he is wrong. You can still have your faith, just stop trying to prove religious claims in a scientific setting. It's never going to work. Just accept your delusion for what it is: an existential security blanket. At least, don't be deluded enough to think you are going to convince anybody here of your false beliefs. You're better off preaching the bible, since that is basically what you are trying to do- convince us of your god.

Speaking of repeating the same thing over and over again, I have refuted your claims of induction and to deny Meyers argument is valid is to deny Darwin's argument is valid. Both rely on evidence of causes now in operation, a fact which you conveniently continue to fail to address. Or, the logic of it just escapes you.

You haven't refuted any of my claims. Meyers does not rely on forces now in operation. He makes assumptions he is not justified in making, such as Pretending that his probabilities accurately describe anything. Tell me, how does he know what numbers to plug into his probabilities? How does he know his numbers are descriptive of what happened? He doesn't. He is just selling an idea, and you've bought it. Whether it not he is using forces now in operation doesn't save him from his use of an inductive argument. Try actually researching inductive reasoning so you can understand what he is doing, Although I am guessing you don't really want to find out how wrong he is. Your stupid equivalency of meyers argument to darwin's is laughable. Darwin had direct, demonstrable evidence for his claims. Meyers has none.

Meyer does too: No complex, information with specificity exists in nature unless it has an intelligent agent as its source, period. Or put another way, ALL functional, complex information has an intelligent agent as its source. This is a hypothesis that will become a law eventually until you prove otherwise. However, you are too blind to even have a logical discussion with, as evidenced by this post. Logic escapes you so what is the point in arguing with you?

 

[UltimateReality]

There are internal contradictions within the bible, which means it discredits itself, such as whether salvation is through faith alone, or faith and works. The bible offers both as a means to salvation, which is contradictory. Does god not even know the path To salvation that he supposedly offers? Or did he put that in the bible just to divide us, making it an evil god? Either way, your screwed.

Faith always comes first and then comes the works. The works are the sign of one's faith and are the result of the working of the Holy Spirit in the life of the saved individual. The works do not achieve salvation. The Law was God's illustration to man of perfection and man's inability to work his way to God. Only God Himself could keep the Law --- the Christ, the only begotten Son of God. Even the faith comes from God and not from within ourselves. God comes to the door of our inner being and knocks. We either accept or reject. When we accept our soul becomes moldable. If we reject God, one's soul becomes harder and harder. This is what happened to Pharoah and King Saul as examples...

I have not faired well with my actions sometimes in this thread.

Don't fall prey to evil people like Hawly. Here tactic is to make you so frustrated with her stupidity and repetitive dribble that you act unbecomingly.