Jump to content

Blasphemy and Duck Rape


Yorkshire Saint

Recommended Posts

:mcinnes:

 

Are you disputing what a 'scientific theory' is and that it differs from the colloquial usage of 'theory'?

 

It is irrelevant that I took it from somewhere else. That does not make it any less true as a defintition.

 

QUICK QUICK QUICK, let me check wikipedia to tell me the answer :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it not be better for you to admit that your quest to bend everybody on here to your will is futile ? You keep driving us round and round the same hamster wheel, and every time somebody puts up viable counter arguments you hit the reset button and kick the whole thing off again. We all know your position, and respect it, but you fail to exhibit any acceptance that other people don't want to live their lives by your absolutist precept, as is their right.

 

No-one has put up a viable counter argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The known world.

 

Odd that bible wrote about the flood thousands of years before science proved its existence dontchathink? given its all a made up fairystory according to you

I have already tried to help him in post #1552.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It so funny. The masters graduate with an encyclopedic knowledge of everything, lecturing us all on how wrong we are copies and pastes from wikiepdia. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

The very same Wikipedia that anyone can alter to suit their own viewpoint

 

Oh the beautiful irony :lol:

 

Hang on a minute, I can feel something underfoot. Nope my bad, it’s just MLG rearranging the goalposts again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-one has put up a viable counter argument.

You mean nobody has surrendered in the face of your obstinacy. How many times have your 'facts' been shown to be erroneous, yet you keep rolling them out.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very same Wikipedia that anyone can alter to suit their own viewpoint

 

Oh the beautiful irony :lol:

 

I was using it for a definition, nothing more. Do you disagree with the definition?

 

There is no irony in that. We can add irony to the list of things you don't understand! Like Alanis Morrisette's song doesn't use irony correctly either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was using it for a definition, nothing more. Do you disagree with the definition?

 

There is no irony in that. We can add irony to the list of things you don't understand! Like Alanis Morrisette's song doesn't use irony correctly either.

 

I understand perfectly thanks. I looked at both sides of the coin and have decided there can be only 1 winner. Because at the end of the day you either believe in creation or evolution, there is no other choice.

 

Here's a little something from Scientist David Rosevear who made an insightful observation about the way

evolutionists apply a double standard. He wrote the following:

 

In 1990 the Hubble Telescope was launched into orbit and began to

send back pictures to earth from space. One of the declared aims of

the project was to look for other planets outside our solar system, and

to try to find extra-terrestrial life. How are we to recognize signs of

life? We must look for coded messages by scanning the sky at various

frequencies to try to pick up intelligent signals. The signals would have

a non-random sequence (a design) and would carry information.

Design and information are recognized as the product of intelligent

life. Yet here on earth we look at the simplest cell, with its incredible

miniaturized design and information, and wonder if it could somehow

have arisen by chance! The reason for this double standard is that

scientists, like other mortals, look for evidence which will support their

philosophical world-view. If life has evolved on earth by chance, then

surely it has evolved in many other places in this vast universe. While

it is recognized that intelligent life-forms would send non-random

messages, it is not accepted that non-random sequences in genetic

material here on earth can only be the product of an intelligent

Designer. Evolutionism is not so much a science, more a philosophical

world-view, with all the dogmatic assertions of religion (David

Rosevear, Creation Science, Chichester, England: New Wine Press, 1991,

p. 20).

 

Not to mention the charlatan Darwin who recognised the problems his theory had with the evidence. Indeed, there were two particular things bothering him were. They were (1) the fossil record, and (2) complicated organisms, such as the eye, that seemed to show design. To this day, these problems continue to plague the theory of evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand perfectly thanks. I looked at both sides of the coin and have decided there can be only 1 winner. Because at the end of the day you either believe in creation or evolution, there is no other choice.

 

Evolution by natural selection is a proven fact. How do you think we went from wolves to every breed of dog?

 

Here's a little something from Scientist David Rosevear who made an insightful observation about the way

evolutionists apply a double standard. He wrote the following:

 

In 1990 the Hubble Telescope was launched into orbit and began to

send back pictures to earth from space. One of the declared aims of

the project was to look for other planets outside our solar system, and

to try to find extra-terrestrial life. How are we to recognize signs of

life? We must look for coded messages by scanning the sky at various

frequencies to try to pick up intelligent signals. The signals would have

a non-random sequence (a design) and would carry information.

Design and information are recognized as the product of intelligent

life. Yet here on earth we look at the simplest cell, with its incredible

miniaturized design and information, and wonder if it could somehow

have arisen by chance! The reason for this double standard is that

scientists, like other mortals, look for evidence which will support their

philosophical world-view. If life has evolved on earth by chance, then

surely it has evolved in many other places in this vast universe. While

it is recognized that intelligent life-forms would send non-random

messages, it is not accepted that non-random sequences in genetic

material here on earth can only be the product of an intelligent

Designer. Evolutionism is not so much a science, more a philosophical

world-view, with all the dogmatic assertions of religion (David

Rosevear, Creation Science, Chichester, England: New Wine Press, 1991,

p. 20).

 

This is nonsense. We recognise design by comparing it to examples of things we know are designed.

 

Not to mention the charlatan Darwin who recognised the problems his theory had with the evidence. Indeed, there were two particular things bothering him were. They were (1) the fossil record, and (2) complicated organisms, such as the eye, that seemed to show design. To this day, these problems continue to plague the theory of evolution.

 

This is nonsense. We know how the eye evolved from animals having light sensitive cells to that of the human eye.

 

27c38272ad66f9a5fdb6b0ddd0de87a3.jpg

 

To get from one to the other, you need time, lots of time and time is what we've got with a planet that is 4 billion years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand perfectly thanks. I looked at both sides of the coin and have decided there can be only 1 winner. Because at the end of the day you either believe in creation or evolution, there is no other choice.

 

Here's a little something from Scientist David Rosevear who made an insightful observation about the way

evolutionists apply a double standard. He wrote the following:

 

In 1990 the Hubble Telescope was launched into orbit and began to

send back pictures to earth from space. One of the declared aims of

the project was to look for other planets outside our solar system, and

to try to find extra-terrestrial life. How are we to recognize signs of

life? We must look for coded messages by scanning the sky at various

frequencies to try to pick up intelligent signals. The signals would have

a non-random sequence (a design) and would carry information.

Design and information are recognized as the product of intelligent

life. Yet here on earth we look at the simplest cell, with its incredible

miniaturized design and information, and wonder if it could somehow

have arisen by chance! The reason for this double standard is that

scientists, like other mortals, look for evidence which will support their

philosophical world-view. If life has evolved on earth by chance, then

surely it has evolved in many other places in this vast universe. While

it is recognized that intelligent life-forms would send non-random

messages, it is not accepted that non-random sequences in genetic

material here on earth can only be the product of an intelligent

Designer. Evolutionism is not so much a science, more a philosophical

world-view, with all the dogmatic assertions of religion (David

Rosevear, Creation Science, Chichester, England: New Wine Press, 1991,

p. 20).

 

Not to mention the charlatan Darwin who recognised the problems his theory had with the evidence. Indeed, there were two particular things bothering him were. They were (1) the fossil record, and (2) complicated organisms, such as the eye, that seemed to show design. To this day, these problems continue to plague the theory of evolution.

Rosevar is hardly an impartial commentator, and Darwin argued that although the eye would present an excellent example for 'argument by design', it was entirely plausible to show that eyes have 'evolved' if evidence of intermediate forms could be found. In the last century or so such examples have been found in the fossil record.

https://www.newscientist.com/term/evolution-of-the-eye/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm not, I am happy to chance my mind on any subject if someone can provide good evidence as to why I should.

 

Do you accept that; 1) several species of fish can survive in both fresh and salt water ?

2) From a 'primitive' observer's perspective, a flood that covers the extent of his known environment is a global event ?

3) That if the Flood did take p!ace it would have been 'fresh' water that caused the oceans to cover the continents ?

4) That it is not a definite that oceanic fish have bigger bones than river fish ?

 

All of these contradict and disprove posts you made.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If God designed the eye, why would he make it so that a large number of people can't see? Why give people made in his image an eye which is inadequate for reading his own scriptures?

 

If God made Man in his own image, which 'man' is a true representation ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you accept that; 1) several species of fish can survive in both fresh and salt water ?

2) From a 'primitive' observer's perspective, a flood that covers the extent of his known environment is a global event ?

3) That if the Flood did take p!ace it would have been 'fresh' water that caused the oceans to cover the continents ?

4) That it is not a definite that oceanic fish have bigger bones than river fish ?

 

All of these contradict and disprove posts you made.

 

1) Some, but not all. So the huge amount of aquatic life that cannot live in both would become extinct... but it didn't.

2) The Bible states that the flood covered mountains. A local flood cannot cover mountains.

3) Where did this fresh water come from... and where did it go? Many animals cannot live in freshwater and would die... but they didn't.

4) In general they do and that is one of many factors. Animals cannot in the space of a few days change from sal****er to freshwater and back to freshwater. Evolutionary changes take large amounts of time, not days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Raging Bull going to agree the eye does not 'continue to plague the theory of evolution'?

 

The diagram in #1685 shows its evolution from a collection of light sensitive cells, to a pin hole camera style to an eye ball. It happens in small steps over millions of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

complicated organisms, such as the eye, that seemed to show design. To this day, these problems continue to plague the theory of evolution.

 

 

27c38272ad66f9a5fdb6b0ddd0de87a3.jpg

 

:mcinnes::mcinnes::mcinnes: and one for luck :mcinnes:

 

1) The eye is not an organism

2) We know how the eye evolved from a few light sensitive cells to a pinhole camera style, to a human eye. All it requires is small changes over time. We have time, lots of time. The earth is more than 4.5 billion years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever been disobedient to your parents? The kind and loving god of the Bible says you should be stoned to death if you have.

 

Back to this 1 again :lol:

 

commandment #5 “Thou shalt not kill.”

 

"right lads grab the goalposts, we're on the move again"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to this 1 again :lol:

 

commandment #5 “Thou shalt not kill.”

 

1) Can you not see how that contradicts the commandment to kill disobedient children?

2) So if a terrorist attacked you with a knife it would be wrong for a policeman to shoot and kill him?

 

"right lads grab the goalposts, we're on the move again"

 

3) I haven't changed the goalposts. You ignored my picking apart your nonsense about the evolution of the eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 10 commandments also say to honour parents so where’s the contradiction?

 

And just so you’re aware (even though I’m sure you’ll bring this up again later in the year), it was, as I’ve already pointed out a few times and you’ve ignored, for a people group who would have ALL known and ALL understood Gods rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 10 commandments also say to honour parents so where’s the contradiction?

 

1) The contradiction is one of the commandments says don't kill and another one says kill disobedient children. That is a contradiction. They are in conflict with each other! They cannot both be followed as one breaks the other. That is what a contradiction is!

2) You've also ignored post #1702 on the nonsense you said about the evolution of the eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) The contradiction is one of the commandments says don't kill and another one says kill disobedient children. That is a contradiction. They are in conflict with each other! They cannot both be followed as one breaks the other. That is what a contradiction is!

2) You've also ignored post #1702 on the nonsense you said about the evolution of the eye.

 

Killing someone is not the same as murder.

 

To murder someone is an unlawful act. Americans kill people in the electric chair all the time after a lawful ruling.

 

It’s not difficult to understand.

 

Go for a walk and clear your head, fella. It seems to be getting to you today

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killing someone is not the same as murder.

 

To murder someone is an unlawful act. Americans kill people in the electric chair all the time after a lawful ruling.

 

It’s not difficult to understand.

 

Go for a walk and clear your head, fella. It seems to be getting to you today

 

It was you that used the word kill! :mcinnes:

 

commandment #5 “Thou shalt not kill.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, so we can go to and fro for ever? no thanks

 

All it requires is you to acknowledge what you said was nonsense.

 

1) The eye is not an organism as you claimed

2) We know how the eye evolved from a few light sensitive cells to a pinhole camera style, to a human eye. All it requires is small changes over time. We have time, lots of time. The earth is more than 4.5 billion years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow that went along way since yesterday.

 

I do not have any hate for a god in my heart, nothing particular bad as ever happened to me. I was never a victim of pedophile priests or in a controlling group like jehovas witnesses, nor the product of a prescriptive cultural directed by religion, nor do I identify as being someone who is part of a group that religions can have moral objections to. Instead I sat through church thinking is anyone really buying this? More boredom than anger, they had a chance to convince me they did not come up with anything compelling.

 

I do not hate religious people, some of its proponents annoy me because of the attempt to impose one religions views on all here in the states, some of the more fringe elements with their extreme ideas I dislike, and I have a problem with a section who use it to enrich themselves (The plant a $1000 seed guy on late night advertising particularly gets me irritated).

 

But if we cannot question an idea or be able to defend one intellectual activity ceases to be possible. We live in a world of technological achievement only possible after the straight jacket of religious control made the renascence possible, other parts of the world are still living in places where ideas can not be questioned because of an "all knowing" book that strangely seem to be used by those in power to stay there....

 

As for science I am a professional scientist, its not that we have proof so much as things are consistent with. If we have an idea we look at evidence and see if it consistent or not, if not we modify the idea until it is consistent with that which is observed, and subject it to continual testing to refine what is known. For people who do not believe in evolution they are living with medical advancement, achieved because of our use of the theory of evolution to explain that around us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lighthouse changed the title to Blasphemy and Duck Rape

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})