I knew he was going to say that!!! I do believe I called it earlier. 
Show me one legitimate scientist who ever said that is expected in evolution or even possible under the theory. If not, retract. Are you so ignorant that you don’t know this, or do you know this and deliberately post lies?
Did Jesus say lying was okay?
Nolies, we’re all happy for you that you have a life. Most of us do too; our lives happen include having interesting discussions on internet message boards.
Surely you’ve gotten the message by now that coming in here an calling us all fools and liars is not going to convince anybody. As I said several pages ago, if you want to claim that science disproves evolution, then you have to play be the rules of science.
This opinion has been repeatedly contradicted in this thread. You have yet to respond to any of those contractions, other that to repeat your opinion. Gee … maybe you think that if you repeat a lie often enough it will become true???
I’ll leave the responses about Christianity to the Christians in the group. But doesn’t it strike you as just a bit curious that some of the strongest arguments against you are coming from devout Christians?
As has been pointed out repeatedly, and never contadicted by you in any scientifically valid way, there are a number of scientific models which can explain abiogenesis. Your claim that “lack of agreement due to limited evidence” is the same thing as “no known process”, is both invalid and directly contraticts your claim that scientists take things on faith.
As has also been pointed out, even if evolution by means of natural selection was found to be innacurate, why should the particular creation myth of a group of pre-literate nomadic shepherds have any more scientific validity than any of the many other such myths in the world?
You asked for a specific example of speciation. We gave you one. There are many, many more, but this is both a classic and an extremely clear example. Go read some Stephen Jay Gould.
Does anybody here even know what this is suposed to mean???
:eek: :eek: :eek: Quite possibly the most stunning statement of ignorance about one’s topic I’ve ever seen.
Sure must be hard on those accumlating deleterious mutations 
No, YOU don’t know what that means. Experimentation is only one way to obtain evidence. The process by which scientific theories are developed and validated has been previously explained in this thread. And once again, all you can do is “repeat until true…”
Y’know, with enough time and selective breeding, I bet humans could create a breed of dog that looked like a cat in numerous ways. Possibly even enough to fool an observer at first glance.
As for using “dogs not changing into cats” as evidence against evolution, the ignorance is pretty profound. Why even debate Nolies about evolution when he hasn’t bothered to educate himself on the (heh) fundamentals?
Apparently, we’ve already bred dogs that look like people. Shouldn’t be too hard to get a cat look-alike out of all that variation
Did you or did you not write that all of the different species of Galapagos finches could have originated with a single pair of birds?
OK, then what is evolution?
I guess the claim in the second quote is to escape from the trap you laid for yourself in arguing that the finches all could have come from a single pair. Aha! Its simple, just define evolution so as to exclude the origin of species.
I’m beginning to have a faint inkling that you don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
I’ve also taught Sunday School from time to time. When I’ve done so, since I’ve been working with older kids, I’ve taught them how to handle it when they do question their faith and that reason and logic are not incompatible with Christian faith. I wish one of your teachers had done the same.
I’d answer your question about the first person on whom God’s grace was poured out, but I’m not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean the first time Jesus performed a miracle? That was at a wedding at Cana. Do you mean the first person to whom Jesus revealed himself as the Messiah in John 4? Actually, since she not only accepted Him as the Messiah, but because of her, the Samaritans urged Jesus to stay and preach to them and, as a result, a great many became believers in what was to become Christianity. Of course, this puts a rather large hole in your claim that Jesus came only to preach to Israel. There are also any number of people Jesus healed who have a claim to having God’s grace poured out on them, but I concede I don’t know which healing came first. Of you’re not requiring that God’s grace be poured out by Jesus, you’d probably have to go back to Genesis. Noah and his family experienced God’s grace when they were spared during the flood, yet one could also argue that Adam and Eve experience God’s grace, and even Cain could be said to have received God’s when God marked him to keep men from killing him. So, to paraphrase my Lord and Saviour, who do you say was the first person to receive God’s grace? By the way, the reason I haven’t mentioned Jesus in this list is because He is one with the Father, He didn’t receive God’s grace; He is the bestower of God’s grace.
As for what Jesus said the Law was, I’ll go with his own words. This particular version is from Matthew 22:36-40, but it’s recorded in all 3 synoptic Gospels:
While I’m in the general neighborhood, I also commend Matthew 23 to you.
How is calling people who’ve spent a lifetime following the teachings of Jesus Christ “immature Christians” because we take God’s word over yours following this teaching? How is telling people they are condemned to hell and there is nothing they can do about it, which is what your doctrine of predestination does, following these teachings? How is telling people they are lost causes come judgement day following these teachings?
I do not regard the whole Bible as allegory. Indeed, I do my best to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, read the Bible, and work out what I do not understand. Because I’ve read and thought about it, I know it does contradict itself and I know that some arguments which have concerned Christianity go back to Christ’s day. I sincerely believe He did come to fulfill the Law, only you and I differ greatly in the way He did so. Throughout this debate, I’ve cited chapter and verse to justify my arguments. I don’t think you’ve done so yet. Are you sure you’re following the Bible and have actually read it, rather than just repeating what others have told you?
I’m quite certain each of us will be judged according to our actions, including what we’ve chosen to believe, at the end of our lives. I suspect we’re all in for some nasty shocks as well as some pleasant surprises. I also freely admit I could be wrong about what I believe, and, if I am condemned because of that, I will accept my condemnation. At least I’ve lived my life as honestly as I can and tried to do God’s will as best I can. Of course, by your beliefs, what I do doesn’t matter because my fate is already sealed. I can spend the rest of my life in decadent orgies or indulge in raise and show people the same kind of cruelty I refuted as being direct disobedience of God because it will make no difference to my ultimate fate.
Stranger On A Train, I agree with you. If God is the way Nolies depicts Him, I’d prefer not to spend eternity with Him, either. On the other hand, by his or her standards, I don’t think that’s something I need to worry about! :eek:
CJ
It’s remarkable that from a single viewpoint, it is possible to nominate with reasonable accuracy -
nolies’
It is no longer a discussion about evolution, but about the personality of the protagonist, as all these discussions must become.
Not that I think you give a rat’s derriere what any of the people here on this Internet message board think of you, because you’ve made it plain that you don’t, and that you enjoy the chance to anonymously insult strangers in the privacy of your own computer.
But, just for the record:
I turn 50 this year. I have been a Christian since I was 9 years old. My husband of 31 years once had dreams of being a pastor of a church, and to that end I not only put him through college and three years of seminary, I also read most of the books he read, and paid attention when he and his seminary buddies sat around and discussed abstruse points of theology. In other words, I was once prepared to make “Pastor’s Wife” my career, so you can judge by that how “immature” or “fake” a Christian I am. I have been teaching First Grade Sunday School in my Fundamentalist church since my son (now 18) was 6, which I guess makes it 12 years.
And up until a couple of years ago, I was wont to describe myself right here on this very message board as a Fundamentalist. However, at that time I had a most illuminating conversation with Gobear (you don’t know him), during which he pointed out that that if I’m not an Inerrantist, I really shouldn’t describe myself as a Fundamentalist here, seeing as how Falwell, Robertson, et al, have hijacked the term to mean “kneejerk ‘every jot and tittle’ Inerrantist”, rather than its historic meaning of “someone who believes in the Five Fundamentals”, which is how I had been using the term.
So if you understood the term “Fundamentalist” in its original, historic sense, then that would tell you a lot about me. Also, my habit of capitalizing “He”, “Him”, and “His”, might have given you a valuable clue, as that’s the convention I was taught in the Fundamentalist church where I was raised. And one which I pass along to my kids in Sunday School. When we copy things off the board to write in our Sunday School journals, we capitalize “He”, “His”, and “Him” because it shows respect.
I would like to point out how rude and immature (not to say “dumb”) it is to walk up to a group of strangers and immediately begin to insult them. You know absolutely nothing about this group of people here on this message board, and yet you, a perfect stranger, presume to walk up to us and sneer at us. You wouldn’t do that in a bar, would you? Not unless you had some kind of death wish. You wouldn’t do that on the sidewalk, or at the mall, or in a restaurant. But you do it here. Because it’s anonymous. Because you can.
Fine. YMMV, I guess, as to whether that’s appropriate social behavior. Myself, I think it sucks. But then again, you’re leaving on March 24, so I guess it really doesn’t matter, does it? To you, or to us.
Jesus never told his disciples not to tell anyone that He had risen from the dead. He only told them not to tell anyone He was going to die. There’s a huge difference.
There’s no “when he sent them out to preach the gospel only to Israel”, because it never happened. He never sent them out to preach the gospel only to Israel. What, you just ignored all my Bible cites that proved that the Great Commission specifies preaching the gospel to “all nations”?
No, you don’t even know what’s in the book of Romans, in which this very issue is thoroughly discussed (“Do Christians still have to uphold all the Mosaic laws, like circumcision?”) and a doctrinal consensus is arrived at (“No.”) I suggest you go check it out.
God’s grace is the forgiveness of sin through the sacrificial blood of Jesus. This would make the first person to be “saved” the thief on the cross, since he was the first one who recognized that Jesus was who He was.
Luke 23:40ff. “But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.”
At least two of these “time + chance = complexity guys” are Christians who, I predict, will be first in line at the Pearly Gates on Judgement Day. And if you had been paying attention, you would have realized that.
You didn’t answer my question about predestination and your personal beliefs. Here it is again.
Well?
So it would appear that **Nolies **is pretty much ignorant of both science *and *religion … seems like that pretty much settles things. And who needs a life around here?
Oh, for the love of pete, people. He’s trolling the hellbound, and getting off on every post. Let this thread die with at least a little dignity intact.
Actually, I’d think we’ve managed to suggest that Nolies really does need more education, on doctrinal points alone.
Nolies, do you have a pastor? Do you have a church you go to? If you do, are you really sure you know as much about your religion as you think? It really seems you have been led astray by a charismatic, but ignorant teacher, who has brought you out of the faith you follow.
You can be saved, you know.
He gets a “gotcha” for this one. In Matthew 10, (as opposed to the corresponding passages in Mark 6 and Luke 9), Jesus tells the newly comissioned apostles to go only to the “lost sheep” of Israel and to avoid the Gentiles and Samaritans.
Of course, Nolies forgot to go back and read his bible before he posted, given that Jesus did not begin to talk about his own death until after that particular ministry had been completed, so his claim that Jesus ordered them to not discuss it in that context is out of chronology and out of context.
I wouldn’t worry about it. Nolies appears to be more interested in darting in to play “gotcha” than in engaging a genuine discussion of either science or theology.
I doubt that there is much we can do to fight ignorance here (except among some of the peanut gallery at home).
I don’t think this thread has been a waste of time, there have been quite a number of interesting and informative posts.
I am kind of disappointed. Here I was thinking that Nolies had conclusively proved Evolution was a bunch of bunk and we were ready to move on to determining which religion was the one true one. I could go for a little of that pagan lifestyle right about now and I want to be sure I’m not going to be ruthlessly sodomized by a pointy-tailed guy in a brimstone hostelry for all eternity if I do.
Enjoy,
Steven
Yes as he said he created us. Never said anything about evoloving. You brought up romans but you left out 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from **the creation of the world ** are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Now you are wrong as to who the BIBLE says was the first person to be saved by grace. It was Paul, He brought the message of Grace not Peter or the other 12. And BTW they didn’t fullfil the great commission did they? as we read here. Gal 2 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. The 12 only went to the jews and Paul went to the gentials.
Grace was always under the Law as GOd made a works system that if they did those things and believed in God they would be saved. But grace is different. You need not do any works. Which is why there was so much conflict in the early church. You seem to know about Romans but when was Israel cut off and the gentials grafted in?
Now age has nothing to do with how well you understand the bible you know that don’t you?
I bet you are a very nice person and you would say the same about me if you met me. I am bolder than you that doesn’t make me wrong. Jesus insulted people calling them snakes, hypocrites, theives, scorpians, vipers. If you say that to someone who deserves it today you are being unChristain.
So then, why did Peter who lived with Jesus, get the Galatians to circumsize and those thing (follow the law) Paul told him he was being untruthful about the gospel. NOw how could this guy who lived with Jesus not understand the gospel? THe one whom the great commisson was given to. Whom BTW didn’t fullfil it, as is recorded in Galatians.
He hadn’t risen from the dead yet but he set them out to preach the gospel. Isn’t the gospel the risen Jesus?
1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. 5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
That is not what Christians preach is it? That is not what you read in your books is it?
Now Jesus’s words as I quote. **“But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” **
Seems pretty clear to me…
Now I have answered your questions, You answer mine
I’m sure you agree that Jesus was God in the flesh. We know that God cannot lie. So with all your bible study how do you explain Jesus’s comments;
Matthew: 16-27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mark:8-38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. 9-1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you,** That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.**
Luke: 9-26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.
Matthew: 10- 22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Now we know that this didn’t happen. It is not the mount of transfiguration as some try to put it. It is clear that he is talking about his SECOND coming. He said some will be alive whom he was talking to see his second coming but they all died and he didn’t come back yet. So is Jesus a liar? How do you make coherent this obvious contadiction to what he said. Being that He was God and can’t lie. Didn’t he lie to those he was talking to?
You say that you have a great biblical knowledge and I believe that have read these passages, but I would bet you just passed over them since they really don’t make sence to you do they?
So tell me did he lie? Why didn’t that happen?
I don’t get it. If you believe the Bible is literally true, that Jesus always told the literal truth, and that Jesus said something that didn’t come to pass, isn’t that a problem with your position? Why are you pointing out inconsistencies in your own position and asking others (your debate opponents, largely) to explain them?
What you’re pointing out isn’t a problem for someone who doesn’t take a strict literalist interpretation of the Bible. For example, I can just say, “Well, the Bible’s not accurate in every word, so if Jesus said something inaccurate, it doesn’t worry me in the least.” So what are you trying to do here?
BTW, I’d like to see you address David Simmons’ point about the finches, another instance of you apparently arguing against yourself. I’m no relation to Darwin’s Finch, nor do I have a particular interest in finches, but you haven’t responded to this at all.
Andros nailed it.
I’ve been lurking since post #1 in horrid fascination, and have little to add that hasn’t already been said, but I’d like to point out to NoLies, that you wandered in here itchin’ for a fight over evolution. We have passed from the Grand Canton to abiogenesis to biblical interpretation.
Nolies, focus!!! You have been asked repeatedly, several very pointed, germaine questions. Please stick to your original topic, and answer them. I seem to remember you suggesting a formal debate; several people offered to take you up on it. I suggest we pick things up at that point, and stay away from cosmology, geology, and theology.
I don’t know you Nolies but playing this “guess what I think the answer is” game is a futile endeavour at any time. What makes it worse is that you are turning on the very brothers and sisters who are share your own spiritual destiny shudder
Now, as bizzwire points out, it is time to get back to the topic at hand. There are many questions challenging your position on creationism that remain unaddressed. I am waiting to hear you responses as I know many people that hold to your interpretation of Genesis and the bible and I am curious as to how you deal with these objections.
Interesting argument I’ve always enjoyed pointing out:
Let’s imagine that all species, humans in particular, really DID start from just one pair. We’ll call the members of this pair, oh, Adam and Eve.
Now, let’s also imagine that evolution cannot happen: all “kinds” were originally created more or less as they remain today (with, perhaps, some decay thrown in, since mutation/selection supposedly can’t increase genetic information, only reduce it!).
Well, we’re faced with an interesting problem then, because humans beings can be host to a extremely wide range of parasites and diseases (which are due to micro-organisms) many of which CANNOT live anywhere other than the human body!
Well, you probably see where I’m going. If these organisms didn’t evolve, then they must have been present in nature at the start of creation, along with Adam and Eve. Not being able to evolve, they also must have had the same basic characteristics then that they retain today: man of them were only adapted to survive in human beings. So, the only place these critters could have been, at the start of the creation, was in either Adam, Eve, or both (and if sexually transmitted, then definately in both).
Which means that Adam and Eve must have had herpes, AIDS, Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, Trichomoniasis, Molluscum Contagiosum, HPV Warts, etc.
Sex in the garden of Eden must have been a pretty nasty experience, what with all the various discharges, blisters, cankers, and so on. Ugh!
I don’t think there was sex in the Garden of Eden. In fact I don’t think the question of any additions to humanity beyond Adam and Eve was addressed even indrectly. God told Eve that after her sin of disobedience she would bear children in pain but I don’t recall anything about how children would have been created, let alone born prior to that.
Just thought I’d throw that into this thread which started out as a “scientific disproof” of the theory of evolution. Sorta reminds you of one of those Sunday afternoon barracks bull sessions. All over the place.