Hmmm…just like you!
Forgive me for getting a bit lost in the bible quoting, but do I read Nolies correctly that Jesus promised a literal, physical second coming, but got pissed off at Israel and changed his mind?!?!?
That’s the Shema
It’s also not The Ten Commandments
Take an agar medium. Lace a dish with ampicilin. Expose to E. coli in this dish, then remove the survivors and allow their plastids to be exchanged with other bacteria. Then notice the progeny can survive on the ampicilin medium. The E coli will have evolved.
Case closed.
You can do the same sort of thing with fruit flies too.
Why do I believe that keeping the sabbath is only for the JEWS. Because that is what GOD said…
*Exodus 31:13 - Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: **for it is a sign between me and you ** throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you.
Exodus 31:17 - **It is a sign between me and the children of Israel ** for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. *
It matters not that my beliefs are not in line with most christians. MOST Christians don’t even read or study their bible their Christanity is of the cliche kind.
As you can see in the verse above, that one verse confirms two points that if Christians don’t believe they are very much of a Christian.
I don’t believe in predestination but pretty much every Christian I have met by 2 to 1 ratio does.
I would be discribed as an open thiest.
Are they wrong? they sure could be but since our views contradict each other one of us has to be. That is that darn law of non contradiction again.
Now if someone claims to be Christian and can’t see the number of references to the literal 6 day creation then they can’t see any truth in any scripture.
So, are there sheep in Heaven?
Tris
FInn on the top ot the page it says this<
Please note that this page contain the name of God. If you print it out, please treat it with appropriate respect. ROFLMAO
Got to treat that paper with respect. Would I go to hell if crumpled the paper. And people say that judeism isn’t a religion of works…
so are they something other than e-coli? LMAO
SO what you have proved is that in the genetic make up of the e-coli some had the ability to survie the ampicilin. They passed that on to their progeny but they are still bacteria. DUH ROFLMAO they are not anything so they have not evolved one bit. Natural section is not a mechanism for change from one life form to another…
Discussing your denial of evolution has become boring, but your religious views are proving quite entertaining.
Yeah… respecting the name of god. That’s almost like the spirit of one of them thar ten commandments. Those wacky Jews.
Judaism is mutifaceted and varied. An Hassidic man shares very little in common with me in terms of actual religious rituals, and perhaps theological beliefs.
Would you, also, treat your bible with respect? Or would you crumple that up?
(Emphasis added)
Thanks for returning to the topic of evolution. Well, yes, they have evolved one little bit. They are now a population that tends to be ampicilin-resistant. Maybe you repeat the experiment on them, and they evolve a resistance to UV light, extreme high and low temperatures and so on. What you now have is a population of something entirely different to e coli.
Now imagine that you have a discrete population of primates living in a treeless valley in Africa, and another population living in a thick forest. They’re almost identical genetically, they look the same and they can interbreed. The ones in the treeless valley have to run around on the ground a lot, so the ones with the longest legs that run the fastest tend to survive. The forest setting favours those who dwell well in trees and thus those with long fingers and toes tend to survive. Over ages of tiny little changes, you’ve got a long-legged running primate that can’t climb trees and a long-fingered climbing primate that’s a poor runner. You’ve got two different forms, recognizably different-looking, and probably not interbreeding.
On your point about the fourth commandment, you say that we don’t have to follow them because they were covenants with the Jews? The entire Decalogue was a covenant with the Jews and you propose that we gentiles continue to obey them.
BTW, I’d leave out the “Duhs” and the “LMAOs”, because many around here interpret them as childish and rude.
(Emphasis was supposed to be added to “…they have not evolved one bit”).
If this statement is true, (and nothing you have posted thus far would lead me to believe that you were being honest on this point) it means two things:
- you live in some sort of Calvinist ghetto, somewhere
and - you have paid no attention to the rest of the world outside your ghetto.
The number of Christians in the world (or in the U.S.) who still maintain a belief in predestination is a miniscule fraction of the general Christian population. Basing so many of your claims on this display of ignorance gives me no reason to accept any of the rest of your more outrageous silliness.
More incredible ignorance on display.
Incidentally, I encourage everyone to listen to that radio show that nolies posted with Michael Shermer (even though nolies has not bothered to tell us what he was talking about when he said that Shermer denies a physical law). It’s really quite an experience!
Wow, that was painful. Bob Enyart is such a typical creationist. About half of the show is dedicated to Enyart pulling out lists of famous scientists who did not accept evolution (most of whom were either hundreds of years before Darwin or contemporaries) and taking quotes out of context purporting to show that the fossil record does not support evolution. The other half was basically Enyart throwing out a lot of terribly confused science. When Nolies gloated about Shermer denying a physical law, he was probably referring to when Shermer argued against the strawman Enyart made of the laws of thermodynamics (again! so typical!). “Michael, I know God exists because the physical laws of thermodynamics tell me that rocks don’t come from nothing.” Or some nonsense like that.
Shermer didn’t do that badly. I can see how difficult it must be to debate a Creationist since it’s basically debating a lot of strawmen. I also got the impression Shermer was told the discussion would be about religion and the origin of belief (to tie in with his book, “Why We Believe”) and was thus unprepared for a debate (however typical) on evolution. He got so frustrated by the end that he basically declared the whole thing a waste of time (which it was) and hung up.
There was a rather funny commercial for one of Enyart’s video tapes; in it, he debates an “evolutionist” and to throw in some extra “fun” (which is the word he used to describe it), there’s a little skit in the middle where an evolution-believing teacher confronts Christ at the last judgment. Makes me almost want to buy it for the sheer camp value.
You could both be wrong. I think the law of non contradiction has a section covering situations like that.
The depths of your ignorance are abyssal, indeed.
You have been provided with definitions of evolution numerous times in this thread – and none of them involve “chang[ing] from one life form to another”. Yet, you persist in your stubbornness to make up your own definitions (apparently, you do so with respect to your theology, as well, based on the last couple pages of this thread). I ask you, then, is your ignorance willful, or is this science stuff truly over your head?
Is it really that difficult for you to grasp that your perception of evolution is a caricature? That you argue against nothing but strawmen? That you are, plainly put, so utterly mistaken about how evolution works – or even how it is theorized to work, if you don’t choose to accept it as fact – that you cannot even remotely hope to make an effective argument against it?
Species, kinds, types, whatever the hell you want to call them are not static. This is plainly evident, and you have even acknowledged as much. That is evolution. The alternative is to believe that God is personally creating each and every new individual organism, every single day. And that is plainly contrary to even your apparently-warped theology.
Speciation has been observed. And contrary to your mind-bogglingly absurd earlier statement, speciation is absolutely evolution. And sure, common descent may be inferred, rather than directly observed, but there is a great deal of corroborating evidence to support that inferrence – indeed, far moreso than the idea that the Bible is somehow “divinely inspired”. Besides which, if you accept historical inferrence regarding the Bible and Jesus’ teachings as valid, you have no choice but to accept the same methods as valid when applied to other topics, including, of course, evolution, geology, astronomy and cosmology. You can’t have it both ways: either historical inferrence is a valid methodology, or it is not.
You are fighting a losing battle here, on all fronts. Not because we are The Damned and simply don’t see the obvious truth of your statements, but because your statements are so absurd as to render them meaningless. Talk about “LMAO”…
Nicely summarized, Finch. And just to add a reminder about one more point that has been raised, and never even acknowledged by Nolies – even if you could disprove evolution, that in itself does not consistute proof of any particular alternative theory, such as creationism.
Yes. He’s saying that because the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, God reneged on His Old Testament promises to give them an earthly kingdom and a Messiah.
He is reading the verses from prophetic books like Jeremiah, in which God, through the prophet Jeremiah, is warning the Children of Israel during the pre-Exile years, to stop worshiping idols or else He will have them carried away captive to punish them. Which eventually does happen.
Prophetic verses can be applied to doctrinal discussions, of course, but this here is a unique use of them, typical of the “Jews are all going to Hell!” mindset.
So, you’re saying that God promised Israel a messiah, and an earthly kingdom, but because they rejected Jesus, He has rescinded all His promises, and all Jews are going to Hell?
I’ve heard that before. It’s a standard Inerrantist Fundamentalist party line.
Part of the reason I have, psychologically at least, left the Inerrantist Fundie fold, is because I could no longer reconcile that party line with God’s promises, repeated many times in the Old Testament, that His various covenants with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the Children of Israel were, well, “covenants”. “Contracts”. Promises.
And in stating that God “changed His mind” somehow, and took away Israel’s inheritance, you’re saying that He went back on His word. Which is, if not “lying”, then at least being mendacious. And God is not mendacious, because He is a perfect being.
I have also renounced the Fundie party line on this issue because I have observed that it tends to lead to the sort of nasty Jew-bashing that, at its worst, led to pogroms.
I have been studying the Bible. And not as an academic exercise. I’ve got a “Read The Bible In A Year” schedule, and I’ve been working my way through the Bible, a few chapters at a time, for a long time now. And I’ve NEVER noticed this “obvious change”. I believe that when God makes a promise, He keeps it, and thus Israel’s earthly kingdom that they were promised is still to come. You’re like the guy who leaves the basketball game with 30 seconds left on the clock, assuming the game is over. The game is far from over, and indeed, if you look at the news, even as we speak, God is still working out the details of how Israel is going to finally be left in possession of the Promised Land (hint: it’s called “diplomacy”.)
Ah.
Open Theism is regarded as heresy by a good-sized chunk of mainstream Christianity.
There follow a number of good articles refuting Open Theism.
Excerpt from one.
http://www.carm.org/open/plain.htm
Isn’t this the Ignorance that the DOPE is suppose to fight. Are you calling me an anti-semite? If I laugh like God does at people who worship foolish things how is that wrong.
Not all Jews are going to hell. Haven’t you read that the Jews will be grafted back in. Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy…15 for if the casting away of them [Israel] be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
Didn’t God want to KILL all the Jews in the desert but Moses pleaded with him not to do it. Then God changed his mind but not for Moses’s sake but for his love for Abraham. Now If GOD new that he wasn’t going to KILL the Jews but he told Moses that he was. He would be lying. But if he really was going to do it and changed his mind due to Moses pleadings then that would mean that the future is unwritten.
There are things that the bible says NEVER entered God’s mind that the Jews would do.
**Ah.
Open Theism is regarded as heresy by a good-sized chunk of mainstream Christianity.**
You claim to know Mainstream Christianity and you say that they believe that God made life evolve. I think we know where that puts them on a scale of biblical soundness.
for God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. God can search our hearts and know if we are lying. I like how in order to support his claim that “God know all” he only uses a verse that is in context of searching our hearts which all Christians believe but twists it to mean God knows the future. You see how desperately he is clinging to his presupposition?
How many times in the bible did God change his mind when he said he was going to do something? 10-20-30. what doesn’t change is the nature and character of God which is holy and righteous. There is no presupposition we just read what the text says. God says “I brought the animals to Adam to see what he would name them" It is clear that God didn’t know what Adam would name them? From the very beginning of the Bible the same theme keeps coming through.
Read the book “A God Who Risks”
The very nature of bacteria is that it mutates. It is part of its genetic code it is one of the characteristics of what makes it bacteria. But it will never be anything more than bacteria…LOL
You keep trying to paint the natural genetic diversity implanted at the creation as evidence for evolution. But since the dog and the cat are different life forms you say that there was some sort of being (Ab) way back when that had in it the Genetic information to spawn both the cats and dogs. Or any two different life forms. But through your model that won’t happen it would only create more of (Ab)'s Those (Ab)’s will only be different in minor ways like your bacteria and will still be (Ab)'s.
God laughs at those people? While shoveling them into the fiery pit of Hell?
God is one sick fuck.
You know, if you learned to communicate in something other than broken English, you might not keep sounding like a broken record.