Jesus returns in a few days

[Calboner]

The arguments in this thread are akin to a scholarly debate on who would win in a fight between Superman and the incredible Hulk.

I don't see the analogy. There is nothing speculative or counterfactual, much less inconsequential, about the question whether "intelligent design" is a genuine scientific theory or an impostor.

 

[Drifterwood]

No, I beleived in evolution for many many years.

No no no no no. Belief neither means knowledge, less understanding. I suppose that this whole discussion is about trying to explain that to you and your continuing confusion, wilfull ignarunse.

If you are only capable of belief, then that is your issue. I understand why some people feel it necessary to foist their limitations on everyone else.

 

[monel]

I don't see the analogy. There is nothing speculative or counterfactual, much less inconsequential, about the question whether "intelligent design" is a genuine scientific theory or an impostor.

My point is, neither proponent is likely move the other in any way. The positions are entrenched. In this particular case the possibility of advancing the arguement is hindered by on side's adherence to arguements of faith which cannot be either proven or disproven. Thus the endeavor becomes as futile as attempting to prove the superiority of two fictional characters that don't exist in each other's "reality".

 

[Drifterwood]

My point is, neither proponent is likely move the other in any way. The positions are entrenched. In this particular case the possibility of advancing the arguement is hindered by on side's adherence to arguements of faith which cannot be either proven or disproven. Thus the endeavor becomes as futile as attempting to prove the superiority of two fictional characters that don't exist in each other's "reality".

You have just so ineloquently proven JA's point. Ignorance is a fruitful garden for the deceitful.

If you can't see the difference, you need to question your education. Can you do that?

I appreciate that I am being a little rude, but I don't live in your country and I don't have to live with this crap.

 

[workandplay243]

Drifterwood, i've discarded evolution for lots of reasons, and my beliefs have changed as to evolution and science and creation ...etc. sometimes in my opinion, it's good one changes their beliefs.
The truth is, that individual, nationalistic and religious belief systems have divided and are dividing the world we live in. They have also divided us from each other and are the source of all conflict today. All one need do is open the newspaper or turn on the TV and you will notice quite clearly how the beliefs that people hold dear are the cause of every friction and humanly imposed calamity on the earth. There are, to name a few big ones: Palestinian vs. Israeli, Fundamentalist Muslim vs. American, Iraqi vs. the Coalition, Chechnya rebels vs. Russians, Protestant vs. Catholic (in Ireland), North Korean vs. South Korean, Basque separatist vs. Spanish, Terrorist vs. Westerner and Indian vs. Pakistani. There have been many more in the history of our civilization: too many to count actually! And there are so many more and perhaps not as blatant nor resulting in war but they exist nonetheless: Pro Choice vs. Anti-Abortion, Republican vs. Democrat, Liberal vs. Conservative, husband vs. wife, establishment vs. youth and on and on.
So I ask you, is it better just to immediately concede to your opponent, or to state what you believe and enjoy peaceful argumentation?

 

[deleted213967]

Terrorism vs. Western Civilization on the same plane as Husband vs. Wife!

With the latter, we are not dealing with a zero-sum game. Win-Win is attainable, desirable and in fact vital.

The former is a clear struggle between right and wrong, between 2 utterly incompatible models. Win-Lose (with terrorism on the losing side) is vital.

Science vs. Dark Ages Obscurantism is not a win-win game either.

 

[Calboner]

My point is, neither proponent is likely move the other in any way. The positions are entrenched. In this particular case the possibility of advancing the arguement is hindered by on side's adherence to arguements of faith which cannot be either proven or disproven. Thus the endeavor becomes as futile as attempting to prove the superiority of two fictional characters that don't exist in each other's "reality".

I grant your initial point that "neither proponent is likely move the other in any way," but I think you go wrong after that. Neither side has offered "arguments of faith"—if by that you mean "arguments from faith." Workandplay's arguments have all along purported to rest on a scientific basis. That is precisely the point on which JA, Drifterwood, Domisoldo, Hickboy, and I--in fact, everyone who has replied to him in this thread--have been opposing him; because by conflating faith and science, he distorts and corrupts both.

Edited to add correction: I may have misunderstood your point. If you meant that Worky has been arguing from faith under a pretense of arguing from science, then you and I have no disagreement.

 

[JustAsking]

My point is, neither proponent is likely move the other in any way. The positions are entrenched. In this particular case the possibility of advancing the arguement is hindered by on side's adherence to arguements of faith which cannot be either proven or disproven. Thus the endeavor becomes as futile as attempting to prove the superiority of two fictional characters that don't exist in each other's "reality".

That's ok with me monel. I knew that going in. As I said in a previous post, my posts were not really directed at worky. They were for the benefit of this august body of LPSG readers.

 

[parr]

Lucky for you our DNA is digitally defined. I wouldn't want to see any of your half-man, half-chimpanzee's offspring running around scaring people looking for Charles Darwin so he could get fixed. You might ask Clint Eastwood if would adopt them, though.

At the risk of stirring up this ant bed, my conclusions have come to this:
1. All living breathing forms of life whether it walks, fly's, or crawl has it's
own "unique" genetic code.
2. The plant life such as the leaves on a tree, that each is unique not one
is exactly alike.
3. When the snow falls, each flake is unique with it's own pattern not any
two are alike.
In my view of whole life senario, these things didn't happen by chance
or by accident, the had to come from somewhere. My therey is it came
from the one who started it all, before the universe was formed.

 

[monel]

I grant your initial point that "neither proponent is likely move the other in any way," but I think you go wrong after that. Neither side has offered "arguments of faith"—if by that you mean "arguments from faith." Workandplay's arguments have all along purported to rest on a scientific basis. That is precisely the point on which JA, Drifterwood, Domisoldo, Hickboy, and I--in fact, everyone who has replied to him in this thread--have been opposing him; because by conflating faith and science, he distorts and corrupts both.

I think we see the debate pretty much the same way, Calboner. I didn't mean to belittle it by my Superman/Hulk analogy but only to underscore its futility. Science and religion do not exist in the realm of each other's universe and each has its own separate rules that do not influence the other.

In my opinion Workandplay's arguments, which mirror those espoused by the proponents of intelligent design, have no scientific basis. Rather, they are arguments of faith cloaked in plausible sounding pseudo scientific theories. Their "science" exists merely to provide a foundation for the tenets of their faith. Science requires that a phenomenon be objectively and impartially observed to a conclusion or truth, whatever that might be.

 

[workandplay243]

I grant your initial point that "neither proponent is likely move the other in any way," but I think you go wrong after that. Neither side has offered "arguments of faith"—if by that you mean "arguments from faith." Workandplay's arguments have all along purported to rest on a scientific basis. That is precisely the point on which JA, Drifterwood, Domisoldo, Hickboy, and I--in fact, everyone who has replied to him in this thread--have been opposing him; because by conflating faith and science, he distorts and corrupts both.

Edited to add correction: I may have misunderstood your point. If you meant that Worky has been arguing from faith under a pretense of arguing from science, then you and I have no disagreement.

You think my attempt to simply fuse faith and science is damaging, what is your argument and reasoning for keeping them separate? distort and corrupt what? Faith? come on. I'm exploiting evolutions fallacies. Science? It is already corrupt. Scientists have their own prejudices and biased beliefs and these are carried through into their final conclusions in all manners of experimentation. It is your duty (and mine) to wade through the details of seemingly un-biased experimental results as thoroughly as possible forming your OWN conclusion, not resting on so called 'experts' theories. There are some who genuinely and honestly look at data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution better fits with the data. However, these represent an insignificant percentage of the scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without any intervention of a higher being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science. And what about atheism?

For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. Although belief in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, he was the first to develop a plausible model for the process of evolution—natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.

 

[Calboner]

You think my attempt to simply fuse faith and science is damaging, what is your argument and reasoning for keeping them separate? distort and corrupt what? Faith? come on. I'm exploiting evolutions fallacies. Science? It is already corrupt. Scientists have their own prejudices and biased beliefs and these are carried through into their final conclusions in all manners of experimentation. It is your duty (and mine) to wade through the details of seemingly un-biased experimental results as thoroughly as possible forming your OWN conclusion, not resting on so called 'experts' theories. There are some who genuinely and honestly look at data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution better fits with the data. However, these represent an insignificant percentage of the scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without any intervention of a higher being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science. And what about atheism?

For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. Although belief in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, he was the first to develop a plausible model for the process of evolution—natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.

Your head is so far up your arse that it would be as wearisome as it would be pointless to try to reply to all the errors that you commit here. I am sick of contending with you.

 

[workandplay243]

Your head is so far up your arse that it would be as wearisome as it would be pointless to try to reply to all the errors that you commit here. I am sick of contending with you.

It's ok, bury your head in the sand and maybe I'll go away. Oh, but I forgot, you are the one and only 'error corrector', or as the Bible states, 'A fool'.

here's some more fusion:

The Bible tells us, “The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”

 

[deleted213967]

“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”

NOT, but thank you for calling and sharing...and shall we take our next call please!

Good evening! Welcome to Open Forum!

 

[Drifterwood]

Ezekiel 23:19-20 NET

Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

Cool.
​

 

[D_Tilly_De_Toilet]

Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.

I would certainly hope so. All of science is naturalistic, which is why you sound like such a moron for wanting to "fuse" it with theology.

 

[Drifterwood]

Some more quotes for you W&P. I particularly like the one where god tells them to eat the foetuses of their victims. One for your pro life lobby.

What you have here is an understanding of a god from the Bronze Age.

I personally can't understand why anyone would either wish to inherit this understanding of god, let alone insist that it's dogma should over rule our latest science. I am willing to bet that even the people who wrote this stuff would be pretty embarassed if they were transported to our time.

"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." (Leviticus 26:22)

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)

"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6)

"When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

"You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you." (Deuteronomy 28:53)

"The Lord said to Joshua [...] 'you are to hamstring their horses.' " (Exceedingly cruel.) (Joshua 11:6)

"... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." (Judges 21:10-12)

"This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass .... And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." (1 Samuel 15:3,7-8)

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)

"A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work!
A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!" (Jeremiah 48:10)

 

[toadstool]

I think it is worthless to predict Jesus return and i think all who try to predict it will probably be damned when he comes watch out he will clear the earth of all the haters of Christ obtw I think the latest e-coli resistant bacteria could be the new Black Plague be ware of your faith and fate of this world will be in his hands

 

[workandplay243]

Some more quotes for you W&P. I particularly like the one where god tells them to eat the foetuses of their victims. One for your pro life lobby.

What you have here is an understanding of a god from the Bronze Age.

I personally can't understand why anyone would either wish to inherit this understanding of god, let alone insist that it's dogma should over rule our latest science. I am willing to bet that even the people who wrote this stuff would be pretty embarassed if they were transported to our time.

"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." (Leviticus 26:22)

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:17-18)

"The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" (Ezechial 9:4-6)

"When the Lord delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the males .... As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves." (Deuteronomy 20:13-14)

"You will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you." (Deuteronomy 28:53)

"The Lord said to Joshua [...] 'you are to hamstring their horses.' " (Exceedingly cruel.) (Joshua 11:6)

"... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." (Judges 21:10-12)

"This is what the Lord says: Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass .... And Saul ... utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword." (1 Samuel 15:3,7-8)

"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their women with child ripped open." (Hosea 13:16)

"A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work!
A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed!" (Jeremiah 48:10)

You missed out on some better ones, but I LOVE the old testament! How about 'passover'?

If you think cruel and unusual things are going on here, you should accustom yourself with the torture techniques of our MODERN cultures, along with so many other things that are hidden from publc.
I could make a long list.

 

[workandplay243]

Ezekiel 23:19-20 NET

Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.

Cool.
​

Yes, and? I already know this one... perfect for the ladies here to exercise these verses.