Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > FL Debate Peanut Gallery

Pages: (22) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,01:09    Quote And now, let's start off with FOUR very serious, very documented, reasons why evolution is incompatible with Christianity. 1.  In biblical Christianity, God is the REQUIRED explanation for the origins and existence of all biological objects (plants, animals, humans, etc) on earth, and He is the REQUIRED explanation for the origins and existence of the stars, the planets, the sun, the moon, and all other cosmological objects -- indeed, the entire universe.  The Bible is very clear on this point. (See Genesis 1:1, Genesis chapters 1 and 2, and see Colossians 1:16, for example.  Also see John chapter 1:3 ---  "All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.") In contrast, evolution specifically denies that God is the REQUIRED explanation for said origins. Psst, Hey Floyd.  Someone should tell you how babies are made.  There ain't no God in it.  Unless your god is a penis or a vagina etc.  If that is the sort of explanation REQUIRED by the bible then the bible REQUIRES FAIL.  I'd be happy to explain this to you via PM if you have never had a chance to see how it works first hand.  I think Arden's mom has a video. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,01:15    you know what else doesn't have a goal, Floyd? oatmeal. that's right. yet it exists.   thus you disprove evilution. For anyone not blinded by the tard, does Quote But evolutionary theory does not admit anticipation of the future (i.e. conscious forethought), either in the process of evolution of an adaptive characteristic or in the development of or behavior of an individual organism." somehow equal Quote the process of evolution that resulted in the origination of the first humans on Earth DOES NOT ADMIT any conscious forethought, any purposefulness or any goal-directedness at ANY point of said evolutionary process, including the point where humans appear.  NO EXCEPTIONS. ? Answer:  No, hell no only someone who despises truth says such things.   Begorrah. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Chayanov Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,01:40    Quote Do you see this, people?  DO you?   This is a direct head-on CRASH That's for sure. -------------- Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,03:50    Quote Who cares if evolution is incompatible with Christianity (or Islam, or Zoroastrianism, or Pastafarianism, for that matter)? Go visit Eugenie Scott's NCSE website when you get a chance to, Albatrossity. Or go visit the National Academy of Science's website and read their latest edition of Science, Evolution, and Creationism.  Use the following link: http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf Or take a look at Freeman and Herron's evolutionary biology textbook Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition. All these evolutionists, and many more, are trying very VERY hard to sell people on the (demonstrably false) notion that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity.   You can find clear examples of this sales effort, within each of those sources I mentioned. So when you ask "Who cares....", take a good hard look at your own evolutionist side of the fence and ask why your own comrades care so much.  After all, they clearly do!! FloydLee

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,04:01    Quote There it is - not even one "alternate version" of christianity, only FL's version. No alternate interpretations of the Bible, only FL's One True Interpretation. In this forum, you are free to provide everybody with your own "interpretation", presumably one in which biblical Christianity can be demonstrated to be compatible with evolution, particularly with macroevolution (see the definitions I supplied in the main debate thread.) Just relax, sit down, and type out your alternate interpretation.  Then we can go to the Bible together in this debate forum and see how well the Scriptural data, the biblical texts and their contexts, supports the "alternate interpretation" that you currently subscribe to. That's certainly a rational approach, and it can be equally and even-handedly applied to both "my interpretation" and "your interpretation."   Do you wish to give it a try?  Is there an "alternate interpretation" you've got that, in light of the biblical data, reconciles evolution and Christianity? FloydLee

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,04:09    I’ve already expressed my misgivings regarding this ‘venture’ and it is turning out even worse than feared. I don’t find much of this:               Quote (1.)  First, I’m going to combine “Evolution is incompatible with Christianity” and “The Biblical Perspective on Biology” and write about BOTH items under the overall topic “Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity.” in this:   Quote Won't lie to you, Dan---Mr. Darwin AIN'T my patron saint, and you should not look for me to speak reverently of him at all times, not even in this main debate thread where I'm committed to civility.   Besides, the promised civility applies to you and all the posters/readers here.   Didn't promise anything to Darwin. Now, I won't do any blatant insults on him, but for me "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin" is within the boundaries.   I do not owe him any reverence---and quite frankly, given what he said about black folks in The Descent Of Man, I honestly think I'm being too lenient on his butt anyway. Darwin has been dead for quite some time and I can’t see how whatever ideas most white people had about black people 150 years ago are relevant wrt evolution vs. Christianity. But, if that’s the way it is going to be, I presume the genocidial maniac Yahweh of the OT is fair game too. He certainly is incompatible with my Christianity. I won’t even repeat FL’s stupid and childish words about Darwin and parts of his anatomy –– but they tell me a lot about FL. In any case they are entirely off topic, but from what I’ve seen of FL so far, that is not much of a concern with him.       Quote Now I have promised to be civil, respectful and circumspect about it all in the main debate thread, and I will very seriously keep that promise. I consider Darwin a part of 'it all’ but I see that FL has his own definition of it all. Circumspect: watchful and discreet; cautious; prudent. The DELETE button on my keyboard often has saved me from making a bigger fool of myself than I already am. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

deadman_932 Posts: 3094 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,04:11    empty for now -------------- AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

Cubist Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,05:16    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,04:01)   Quote There it is - not even one "alternate version" of christianity, only FL's version. No alternate interpretations of the Bible, only FL's One True Interpretation. Is there an "alternate interpretation" you've got that, in light of the biblical data, reconciles evolution and Christianity? I don't happen to have such an interpretation myself... but then, I'm also not a Believer, so I think it would be unfair to expect that of me. So please allow me to cite a very definitely Christian gent named Glenn Morton, who does have such an interpretation. Perhaps you might be good enough to check out Morton's harmonization of science with Christianity, and identify any errors Morton may have committed?

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,05:16    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 15 2009,23:45) ONLOOKERS. 1. HEDDLE:=> HAR HAR THIS IS YOUR 'CAR'. USA! USA! That's not my car, that's my support vehicle. This is my car: -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,07:11    Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2009,11:16) Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 15 2009,23:45) ONLOOKERS. 1. HEDDLE:=> HAR HAR THIS IS YOUR 'CAR'. USA! USA! That's not my car, that's my support vehicle. This is my car: {Cough} Overcompensating {Cough} Tiny cock {Cough} What? I said nothing. Louis -------------- Bye.

SLP Posts: 136 Joined: Dec. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,08:07    Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Why does Yahweh have this things about uncircumcised penises? Was Yahweh the original 'Catholic Priest'?

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,08:23    Shhhuuush SLP, don't you dare unbalance teh kristian! -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

nmgirl Posts: 92 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,09:27    FL, what is a "biblical christian"? Is this your definition who believes in a literal interpretation of every word in the bible?  so what do you call us who are not literalists?  Oh wait, i know the answer:  hell bound, spawns of Satan, evilutionists.

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,09:53    Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 16 2009,09:27) FL, what is a "biblical christian"? Is this your definition who believes in a literal interpretation of every word in the bible?  so what do you call us who are not literalists?  Oh wait, i know the answer:  hell bound, spawns of Satan, evilutionists. FL is a hypocrite even when it comes to taking the Bible literally.  One thread where this came up, he essentially said it was alright not to kill people who disobey the many, many laws in the Book of Deuteronomy that demand death as punishment, i.e., eating milk with meat, eating shellfish, eating pork, wearing fabrics of mixed thread, working on Saturday, being a fussy or unruly child, etc. If he were a genuine Biblical literalist, he would be making demands that goat breeders breed striped goats by showing the copulating animals striped sticks, in addition to demanding death to people who violate the laws of Deuteronomy.

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,10:05    Quote (Stanton @ Sep. 16 2009,09:53)   Quote (nmgirl @ Sep. 16 2009,09:27) FL, what is a "biblical christian"? Is this your definition who believes in a literal interpretation of every word in the bible?  so what do you call us who are not literalists?  Oh wait, i know the answer:  hell bound, spawns of Satan, evilutionists. FL is a hypocrite even when it comes to taking the Bible literally.  One thread where this came up, he essentially said it was alright not to kill people who disobey the many, many laws in the Book of Deuteronomy that demand death as punishment, i.e., eating milk with meat, eating shellfish, eating pork, wearing fabrics of mixed thread, working on Saturday, being a fussy or unruly child, etc. If he were a genuine Biblical literalist, he would be making demands that goat breeders breed striped goats by showing the copulating animals striped sticks, in addition to demanding death to people who violate the laws of Deuteronomy. Actually he would not. The most you could demand of him is that he acknowledged that at one time the laws of a now non-existent nation demanded capital punishment for many crimes, and that at one time Jacob bred fancy livestock by the method you described.  As a literalist he could still argue, convincingly if he knows how, that those laws are null and void, even given the jot and tittle passage, and that Jacob's genetic engineering was accomplished by one-time divine intervention to further God's redemptive plan. (Now whether Jacob knew it or not remains unanswered.) He could argue it--not me. That is, I've made the exegetical argument a gazillion times and am not interested in making it again. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,10:07    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,03:50) Quote Who cares if evolution is incompatible with Christianity (or Islam, or Zoroastrianism, or Pastafarianism, for that matter)? Go visit Eugenie Scott's NCSE website when you get a chance to, Albatrossity. Or go visit the National Academy of Science's website and read their latest edition of Science, Evolution, and Creationism.  Use the following link: http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf Or take a look at Freeman and Herron's evolutionary biology textbook Evolutionary Analysis 4th edition. All these evolutionists, and many more, are trying very VERY hard to sell people on the (demonstrably false) notion that evolution is somehow compatible with Christianity.   You can find clear examples of this sales effort, within each of those sources I mentioned. So when you ask "Who cares....", take a good hard look at your own evolutionist side of the fence and ask why your own comrades care so much.  After all, they clearly do!! FloydLee Floyd, I do understand the urge on the part of the NCSE to bring reason to the heathens. You should understand it too; your faith has a long history of missionary activities. I also care when it comes to education vis-a-vis the scientific facts; that's my job, in fact. Ignorant citizens are the bane of this democracy, and fighting ignorance is a worthwhile career. But if the heathens, as in your case, cannot be reasoned with because of their biblical blinders, when they are not arguing about science, and when they do not understand the facts, I submit that "Who cares?" is still a valid response. If your conflation of religion and science is so deeply wrong that you cannot be educated, at some point "Who cares?" is the only rational response left. If I had the remotest hope that you would change your mind in response to the evidence, it would be a different story. I don't have that hope, and hopelessness about your ability to learn from new (and old) evidence leads to "Who cares?" Not me. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,10:12    i'll tell you who cares!!! DEADMAN bwaahahahahahahahaah -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,10:16    Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2009,10:05) I've made the exegetical argument a gazillion times... WHAT IS THIS EXAGGERATIONAL ARGUMENT YOU TALK ABOUT? -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Stanton Posts: 266 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,10:18    Quote (Quack @ Sep. 16 2009,04:09)     Quote Now, I won't do any blatant insults on him, but for me "Big Daddy Chuck Darwin" is within the boundaries.   I do not owe him any reverence---and quite frankly, given what he said about black folks in The Descent Of Man, I honestly think I'm being too lenient on his butt anyway. Darwin has been dead for quite some time and I can’t see how whatever ideas most white people had about black people 150 years ago are relevant wrt evolution vs. Christianity. FL is either lying out of his piehole when he claims that Darwin was being an evil racist bigot in Descent of Man, as he's obviously relying solely upon the patently false anecdotes of other creationists, or he really did read Descent of Man, and the very idea that Charles Darwin had the unmitigated gall to assume that blacks and whites (and pretty much every single other ethnic group Mr Darwin came in contact with) were all the same species apparently fills FL with quaking anger.

dheddle Posts: 545 Joined: Sep. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,10:28    Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 16 2009,10:16)   Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2009,10:05) I've made the exegetical argument a gazillion times... WHAT IS THIS EXAGGERATIONAL ARGUMENT YOU TALK ABOUT? The exaggeration is this: Even without Yankee help, Rich Hughes and Louis wouldn't be speaking German. Times Two. -------------- Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,10:36    Let's do a few items, a bit at a time....   Quote Perhaps you might be good enough to check out Morton's harmonization of science with Christianity, and identify any errors Morton may have committed? Somewhere between today and Friday, I will at least glance at Morton's website to see how he fares specifically WRT resolving the Big Four Incompatibilities I've presented.   Any other Morton topic I'll probably skip for now, just would want to see if he has resolved those particular issues.  Last time I looked, I don't believe he did. ******   Quote FL, what is a "biblical christian"?  Is this your definition who believes in a literal interpretation of every word in the bible?  so what do you call us who are not literalists?  Oh wait, i know the answer:  hell bound, spawns of Satan, evilutionists. So far, I have referred to "biblical Christianity", not "biblical Christians."  Quite frankly, the Bible tells us what beliefs are clearly involved in Christianity.  So I'm sticking with that.   I didn't say anything about you or anybody being a spawn of Satan, nor do I intend to.  Nor did I say you are going to Hell, although if you talk like you're unsaved and don't even care, I may just mention good ole Hell-Fire anyway, just for the sake of doing so. On the other hand, the New Testament clearly shows that even people who claim to be Christians are sometimes capable of swallowing beliefs that erode and corrode Christian faith, even to the point of leading a person away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.   Quote "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ." ---Gal. 1:6-7   So it's not about consigning you to Hell, Nmgirl, but instead simply looking to see if evolution is compatible or incompatible with biblical Christianity.   (Besides, I'm not even sure what you mean by suggesting that you're "not a literalist" Christian.   For example, are a you a "non-literalist" when it comes to Jesus's substitutionary atonement on the cross?  How about WRT Jesus's Resurrection---are you a "non-literalist" on THAT biblically non-negotiable issue?  Hmm?) ****** So, for now, I'm just focussing mostly on doing the evolution-Christianity comparison for the sake of determining compatibility or incompatibility.   FloydLee

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,10:40    FloydLee, So, is it just Christianity that evolution is incompatible with or....? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Keelyn Posts: 40 Joined: Feb. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,10:43    I won’t post in the “Debate” forum (at this time), since as an agnostic it is of no importance to me at all whether evolutionary theory and Christianity are compatible. Although, I would personally conclude that the two are “incompatible” only when one takes the typical YEC literalist (like FL) interpretation of scripture. Whatever. However, his comments about Darwin are childish at best. It’s rather interesting, though dismissible, that FL insists that the best judge of Darwin’s personal feelings and philosophies are the opinions and conclusions of others and not the personal writings of Darwin himself. But, citing only two examples (one of which is highly suspect) hardly makes a case against the hundreds of millions of people who don’t take his literalist view of the scriptures. If FL kicked everyone who didn’t agree with his interpretation of the Bible out of the Christian faith, he’d reduce Christianity to an insignificant player in the world’s religions. Hmm. Maybe he’s on to something – that doesn’t seem like such a bad idea to me. I do wish he would stop conflating evolutionary (biological) theory with cosmology – two disciplines which he knows absolutely nothing about. First of all, evolution does not specifically deny God – scientific methodology (which includes evolution, geology, cosmology, etc), in general, simply doesn’t address supernatural explanations – that is not a denial of anything. Secondly, evolution (biological) does not come in “two flavors” – micro and macro. It comes in ONE delicious flavor – it’s called …evolution. The terms microevolution and macroevolution were first used in 1927 …by a Russian. They are exactly the same process and modern biologists make no real distinction between the two. That “magic” line is a creationist invention, regardless of which textbooks FL cites. -------------- This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. -- Wolfgang Pauli Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. -- Mark Twain

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,10:54    Quote (Louis @ Sep. 15 2009,18:18)   Quote (Quack @ Sep. 15 2009,22:26)   Quote Keep it Clean! I just love you guys how clean you keep it as long as no creationist rears his head to stir you up and arouse the kind hearts and loveliness you hide so well... Thank you....wait....you take that back! ;-) Louis What did I say, or intend to say? I guess it might be ambiguous, so please let me make it 100% clear: your kind hearts are present and obvious but you are too prudent to let that outshine the joy of romping around on this playground. Keep up the good work! -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

FloydLee Posts: 577 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,10:59    Quote Psst, Hey Floyd.  Someone should tell you how babies are made.  There ain't no God in it. Hmmm.  That is specifically not what the Bible says.  Let's check things out: Quote 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.  When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body.  All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. ---Psalm 139 Looks like the Bible says that God is directly involved in it.   In fact, let's be specific:  the Bible says that God was directly involved in YOUR OWN existence as a baby.   He did it.  Not evolution.  Not materialism.  Not atheism.  GOD did it.  THAT is why you're existing right now as an adult, reading this post at this very moment.  Period. Even the Muslims agree on this point: http://harunyahya.com/creation04.php

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,11:03    Quote And I have a soft spot for the old cars of the English. Of course it has to be the old cars since they don't make any new cars. Who owns Jaguar? who owns Land Rover? India? Pakistan? Afghanistan? Chad? The best buy of a car that I've ever made was when I bought a 10 years old Hillman Minx... I enjoyed it almost as much as I now enjoy a 150 hp Audi A3. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,11:05    Quote (Quack @ Sep. 16 2009,16:54) Quote (Louis @ Sep. 15 2009,18:18)   Quote (Quack @ Sep. 15 2009,22:26)     Quote Keep it Clean! I just love you guys how clean you keep it as long as no creationist rears his head to stir you up and arouse the kind hearts and loveliness you hide so well... Thank you....wait....you take that back! ;-) Louis What did I say, or intend to say? I guess it might be ambiguous, so please let me make it 100% clear: your kind hearts are present and obvious but you are too prudent to let that outshine the joy of romping around on this playground. Keep up the good work! Stop it! You're being.....nice. And you're complimenting people, it's just.....wrong. I feel all clean, it's disgusting. I'm off to do something nasty and compile a series of twisted vituperations. You see if I don't! Louis -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,11:07    Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2009,16:28) Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 16 2009,10:16)   Quote (dheddle @ Sep. 16 2009,10:05) I've made the exegetical argument a gazillion times... WHAT IS THIS EXAGGERATIONAL ARGUMENT YOU TALK ABOUT? The exaggeration is this: Even without Yankee help, Rich Hughes and Louis wouldn't be speaking German. Times Two. Typical fundamentalist christian, can't tell the difference between fact and fiction as usual. Louis P.S. You get a D-, must try harder. WWII is soooooooo last century. -------------- Bye.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,11:11    Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 16 2009,16:59) Quote Psst, Hey Floyd.  Someone should tell you how babies are made.  There ain't no God in it. Hmmm.  That is specifically not what the Bible says.  Let's check things out:   Quote 13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.  When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body.  All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. ---Psalm 139 Looks like the Bible says that God is directly involved in it.   In fact, let's be specific:  the Bible says that God was directly involved in YOUR OWN existence as a baby.   He did it.  Not evolution.  Not materialism.  Not atheism.  GOD did it.  THAT is why you're existing right now as an adult, reading this post at this very moment.  Period. Even the Muslims agree on this point: http://harunyahya.com/creation04.php LOL Oktar represents all ~1.5 billion muslims now does he? Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha {deep breath} Ahahaha ahahahahaha hahahahaha. Does the "different sects of various religions" fact still escape you FL? It seems that even my spectacularly low expectations of you were too high. Louis -------------- Bye.

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2009,11:19    Quote For example, are a you a "non-literalist" when it comes to Jesus's substitutionary atonement on the cross? Let us be literalists and acknowledge that in addition to Jesus's (ohmygod) substitionational atonement on the cross for our sins, he also substitionated resurrection for us. Too bad; we're already both forgiven and resurrected with no hope of yet another resurrection to get us into heaven... -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Pages: (22) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard