- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 13 2012,15:06)
I can tell you with certainty that the bible's cosmology is wrong.
Hi WIT,Where is your certainty if you cannot prove it?
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1.Thess.5:21)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,12:18) I want to see the fossil of the fish that grew wheels instead of legs.
Of course you do.But it's the kind of request you should be making to a creationist.
Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,09:52) Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 12 2012,04:21) Obviously when Jesus said what I quoted, he meant something else. He didn't know what he was talking about.
Well that makes two of us then. Because I don't know what you're talking about right now. To which scripture do you refer? And on what is your claim that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about based?
Hi Mike,I gave you these scriptures in an earlier post.
Jesus spoke in parables so that people could NOT understand.
“All these things spoke Jesus unto the multitude in PARABLES; and without a parable spoke He not unto them.” Matt 13:34
“This PARABLE spoke Jesus unto them; but they understood not what things they were which He spoke unto them.” John 10:6
The disciples did not like Jesus using parables, for they and the multitude could not understand them. So they asked Jesus to explain the parables to them. “Why speakest thou unto them in parables?” (Matt 13:10).Jesus himself told them why. “That seeing they may see, and not perceived: and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should be forgiven them. And He said unto them, Know ye not this parable? And how then will you know all parables?” Mark 4:10-13
This passage tells us that Jesus didn’t want them to understand and He didn’t want to convert them and He didn’t want to save them.
You keep denying what Jesus said because you know better.
You infer that Jesus did not know what he was talking about when he said these things, because he really made things easy to understand.Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 14 2012,04:34) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,09:52) Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 12 2012,04:21) Obviously when Jesus said what I quoted, he meant something else. He didn't know what he was talking about.
Well that makes two of us then. Because I don't know what you're talking about right now. To which scripture do you refer? And on what is your claim that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about based?
Hi Mike,I gave you these scriptures in an earlier post.
Jesus spoke in parables so that people could NOT understand.
“All these things spoke Jesus unto the multitude in PARABLES; and without a parable spoke He not unto them.” Matt 13:34
“This PARABLE spoke Jesus unto them; but they understood not what things they were which He spoke unto them.” John 10:6
The disciples did not like Jesus using parables, for they and the multitude could not understand them. So they asked Jesus to explain the parables to them. “Why speakest thou unto them in parables?” (Matt 13:10).Jesus himself told them why. “That seeing they may see, and not perceived: and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted and their sins should be forgiven them. And He said unto them, Know ye not this parable? And how then will you know all parables?” Mark 4:10-13
This passage tells us that Jesus didn’t want them to understand and He didn’t want to convert them and He didn’t want to save them.
You keep denying what Jesus said because you know better.
You infer that Jesus did not know what he was talking about when he said these things, because he really made things easy to understand.Tim
FrankThe reason that Jesus did that is that he came to gather his brothers (the lost sheepskin of Israel)but he left the gathering of the other sheep to his disciples,
Pierre
Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 13 2012,04:34) This passage tells us that Jesus didn’t want them to understand and He didn’t want to convert them and He didn’t want to save them. 
That's quite some imagination, Tim. Jesus was called the Wonderful Counselor for a reason. And John said no one has ever seen God, but the only begotten god came to make Him known.You are confused if you think the disciples didn't eventually figure out the parables. And you are more confused if you think Jesus came to NOT save people.
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2012,21:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,10:36) So these are actual, LIVING beings,
No.Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2012,21:28) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,10:36) that come to life spontaneously by themselves?
Not to life, no, but spontaneously yes.
Well then you have nothing. Hit me up when you have proof of something that was lifeless coming to life spontaneously and unaided.Do you remember that I was asking how a LIFE FORM not only spontaneously “livened” itself, but did so right from the start with the ability to reproduce itself indefinitely.
Quote However, as it turns out, I do remember that earlier conversation.
Well, GOOD! Now if YOU want to search out this discussion we had over a year ago, and prove to everyone that you said “design” instead of “creature”, go for it. And if it turns out YOUR memory is serving you better than MY memory is serving me, I will happily give the apology you're after. The evidence is out there somewhere on this site. Go search it out and prove me wrong. Until then…………..shhhhhh.Quote So you made a sexist retort based on very little information.
Yes, I suppose since my statement had to do only with the female sex, it was a sexist statement. But pms is a FACT, Stu. The results of this “disorder” are well documented. There's even a ton of available medicine to deal with this REAL problem. I called it like I saw it. And I would say, “Sorry it upset you, Stu”, but I don't really care that it did.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 12 2012,22:06) I can tell you with certainty that the bible's cosmology is wrong.
No, you actually can't, WIT. Or at least you haven't shown me yet.Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 12 2012,22:06) I believe you when you say that you put the bible ahead of science.
Absolutely! And which “science” knows more than the scriptures? The science of 1000 years ago? 200 years ago? 100? 50? Last year?See WIT, what scientists know “with certainty” TODAY is always and forever being disproved by later scientists.
It seems to me that if you can't prove the universe is NOT in a dome, then you can't, with any CERTAINTY, make the claim about the “firmament” that you are trying to make.
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 13 2012,00:50) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,12:18) I want to see the fossil of the fish that grew wheels instead of legs.
Of course you do.But it's the kind of request you should be making to a creationist.
Stuart
What does that mean, Stu? Isn't natural selection just a mumbo-jumbo of mutating cells and body parts?Why legs and not wheels?
Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 10 2012,21:30) I think that you have it all wrong Mike. Jesus never “dumbed down” anyting to make it easier to understand.
The apostles never understood the parables of Jesus, and told him so.
Jesus then explained the parable to them and told them that the reason that he spoke in parables was so that no one could understand him. Of course, that could have been a parable as well since most Christians don't understand this.
Tim
Indeed parables do have that use, whereby the meaning is hidden to those who do not have ears to hear.But to those with ears to hear, parables are also a simplistic way to understand something. A physical story representing a spiritual principle.
Often the proud will not stoop down to hearing a parable.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2012,08:04) Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 13 2012,04:34) This passage tells us that Jesus didn’t want them to understand and He didn’t want to convert them and He didn’t want to save them. That's quite some imagination, Tim. Jesus was called the Wonderful Counselor for a reason. And John said no one has ever seen God, but the only begotten god came to make Him known.You are confused if you think the disciples didn't eventually figure out the parables. And you are more confused if you think Jesus came to NOT save people.
Further, when the Spirit was poured out, they were able to understand much of what he had said whereas previously they have little understanding.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2012,08:28) Well then you have nothing. Hit me up when you have proof of something that was lifeless coming to life spontaneously and unaided. Do you remember that I was asking how a LIFE FORM not only spontaneously “livened” itself, but did so right from the start with the ability to reproduce itself indefinitely.
Actually, you asked this: “I'm asking WHY the first cells would have started to exist with a reproductive capability in the first place.And I replied with this: I’ve already given my answer to this. Chemical micelles, which form spontaneously, can do something that looks very much like a form of cell division. Micelles look like cell membranes, and they have no DNA or any other kind of replicating molecule inside them; this “reproduction” is just a function of the spontaneous distribution of surface energy amongst the molecules on those micelles. Now, do you have enough chemistry or biochemistry to keep up with the next part?
And I was asking you if you were up to following the next part of the explanation, that is more complicated than your attention span is going to cope with, by the look of it. You still haven't answered.
But actually, if we could extend your attention span, it looks like there would emerge an explanation that would satisfy your request, so I guess you playing the petulant four-year-old is your way of avoiding having your comfortable fantasy world challenged.
Maybe you could get back to us when you have a creation story that has “proof of something that was lifeless coming to life, aided”.
…or when you are ready to listen.
Quote Well, GOOD! Now if YOU want to search out this discussion we had over a year ago, and prove to everyone that you said “design” instead of “creature”, go for it. And if it turns out YOUR memory is serving you better than MY memory is serving me, I will happily give the apology you're after. The evidence is out there somewhere on this site. Go search it out and prove me wrong. Until then…………..shhhhhh.
So you want me to do your work for you. No thanks. You’re getting enough free tuition already.Stuu: So you made a sexist retort based on very little information.
Quote Yes, I suppose since my statement had to do only with the female sex, it was a sexist statement. But pms is a FACT, Stu. The results of this “disorder” are well documented. There's even a ton of available medicine to deal with this REAL problem. I called it like I saw it. And I would say, “Sorry it upset you, Stu”, but I don't really care that it did.
I know you call things based on your own ignorance, I wonder if you have anything more than ignorance.It didn’t upset me, and PMS is not considered to be a disorder. While your sexism is despicable, my reaction was actually that I laughed heartily at your inappropriateness, and general lack of fitness to be any kind of moderator of an internet forum.
Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2012,08:40) Absolutely! And which “science” knows more than the scriptures? The science of 1000 years ago? 200 years ago? 100? 50? Last year?
Greeks and Chinese philosophers knew far more science at the same time as the writing of the Jewish bible.Every age has had science that knew more than your scripture. It even contains science itself, although it only has disparaging things to say about intelligence and the knowledge of humans.
Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2012,08:45) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 13 2012,00:50) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,12:18) I want to see the fossil of the fish that grew wheels instead of legs.
Of course you do.But it's the kind of request you should be making to a creationist.
Stuart
What does that mean, Stu? Isn't natural selection just a mumbo-jumbo of mutating cells and body parts?Why legs and not wheels?
Because evolution by natural selection predicts that changes in body plan are amongst the least likely things to be observed.And I don't think there is any species you could seriously say would benefit from having wheels in their particular environments, so there is unlikely to be any selection pressure favouring wheels.
On the other hand, we are always told by the religious that with god anything is possible. That's why I suggested you ask a creationist.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 14 2012,10:21) Further, when the Spirit was poured out, they were able to understand much of what he had said whereas previously they have little understanding.
I find that when the spirit is poured out everything becomes much clearer.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 14 2012,12:59) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 14 2012,10:21) Further, when the Spirit was poured out, they were able to understand much of what he had said whereas previously they have little understanding.
I find that when the spirit is poured out everything becomes much clearer.Stuart
Okay, okayI tried to not even bother with this conversation but STU you should clearly stop trying to sound intelligent and be a little more grounded and honest.
When someone asks you about reproductive capacity don't just start making things up because once you get into sexual creatures how are you going to then explain the simultaneous readiness of reproductive capacity needed to make SEXUAL reproduction necessary?
If you say you know, I warn you that it is completely unknown according to science
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 14 2012,12:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2012,08:45) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 13 2012,00:50) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,12:18) I want to see the fossil of the fish that grew wheels instead of legs.
Of course you do.But it's the kind of request you should be making to a creationist.
Stuart
What does that mean, Stu? Isn't natural selection just a mumbo-jumbo of mutating cells and body parts?Why legs and not wheels?
Because evolution by natural selection predicts that changes in body plan are amongst the least likely things to be observed.And I don't think there is any species you could seriously say would benefit from having wheels in their particular environments, so there is unlikely to be any selection pressure favouring wheels.
On the other hand, we are always told by the religious that with god anything is possible. That's why I suggested you ask a creationist.
Stuart
WRONG , WRONG and WRONGNatural Selection does not “predict” anything so stop using loaded words. You either don't understand the ToE or you are purposely misstating the theory for effect.
Natural Selection could only mean what survives in the environment i.e Biological Viability. There is no prediction or creation of “advantages”
If you are going to talk evolution stop conjuring up religious conscious tones for it let the science of it speak for itself because right now you keep describing evolution as “A purpose driven concept equivalent to DESIGN”
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 14 2012,13:34) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 14 2012,12:59) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 14 2012,10:21) Further, when the Spirit was poured out, they were able to understand much of what he had said whereas previously they have little understanding.
I find that when the spirit is poured out everything becomes much clearer.Stuart
Okay, okayI tried to not even bother with this conversation but STU you should clearly stop trying to sound intelligent and be a little more grounded and honest.
When someone asks you about reproductive capacity don't just start making things up because once you get into sexual creatures how are you going to then explain the simultaneous readiness of reproductive capacity needed to make SEXUAL reproduction necessary?
If you say you know, I warn you that it is completely unknown according to science
We haven't even got to reproduction under the control of a genome yet, and you have jumped nearly three billion years ahead to the advent of sexual reproduction.You wanted to be involved, but you don't know anything about it, so you posted something irrelevant, about which you said nothing interesting anyway.
Do you need me to explain again to you why your claims about males and females having to evolve separately and simultaneously are trivially wrong??
Was it the loneliness of only having three people in your cult that motivated you to post?
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 14 2012,13:44) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 14 2012,12:56) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2012,08:45) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 13 2012,00:50) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,12:18) I want to see the fossil of the fish that grew wheels instead of legs.
Of course you do.But it's the kind of request you should be making to a creationist.
Stuart
What does that mean, Stu? Isn't natural selection just a mumbo-jumbo of mutating cells and body parts?Why legs and not wheels?
Because evolution by natural selection predicts that changes in body plan are amongst the least likely things to be observed.And I don't think there is any species you could seriously say would benefit from having wheels in their particular environments, so there is unlikely to be any selection pressure favouring wheels.
On the other hand, we are always told by the religious that with god anything is possible. That's why I suggested you ask a creationist.
Stuart
WRONG , WRONG and WRONGNatural Selection does not “predict” anything so stop using loaded words. You either don't understand the ToE or you are purposely misstating the theory for effect.
Natural Selection could only mean what survives in the environment i.e Biological Viability. There is no prediction or creation of “advantages”
If you are going to talk evolution stop conjuring up religious conscious tones for it let the science of it speak for itself because right now you keep describing evolution as “A purpose driven concept equivalent to DESIGN”
Evolution by natural selection is a proper scientific theory, and it wouldn't be a theory if it did not make testble predictions.In the 19th Century the fossil record was pretty sparse compared with today, but Darwin used his theory to predict that further fossils would be found that showed transitions between species, and that is what was found.
Several scientists used evolution by natural selection to predict that the Piltdown discovery would turn out to be a forgery, which was shown to be right decades later when the required analytical techniques had been developed.
You're confusing the concept of a scientific theory with the concept of natural selection. I never suggested that there is anything predictive in the process of natural selection itself, just that the theory ABOUT natural selection can make predictions.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 14 2012,10:21) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 14 2012,08:04) Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 13 2012,04:34) This passage tells us that Jesus didn’t want them to understand and He didn’t want to convert them and He didn’t want to save them. That's quite some imagination, Tim. Jesus was called the Wonderful Counselor for a reason. And John said no one has ever seen God, but the only begotten god came to make Him known.You are confused if you think the disciples didn't eventually figure out the parables. And you are more confused if you think Jesus came to NOT save people.
Further, when the Spirit was poured out, they were able to understand much of what he had said whereas previously they have little understanding.
Let me get this straight T8.
Until the Spirit was poured out, even the disciples couldn't understand what Jesus was teaching. But after the Spirit was poured out, the parables became a “simplistic way to understanding something.”God must not care much for all people if He supplies life saving information that requires special hearing aids to hear, and then does not give them all the hearing aids.
There are billions of people in the world who do not possess these special hearing aids.Yet you say ” Often the proud will not stoop down to hearing a parable.” when the truth is that God has withheld the hearing aid.
Tim
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 14 2012,02:38) In the 19th Century the fossil record was pretty sparse compared with today, but Darwin used his theory to predict that further fossils would be found that showed transitions between species, and that is what was found.
What archaeologists have found are fossils of many different species of creation. The thought that fossil Y is the the evolutionary link between fossil X and fossil Z is purely man's conjecture, and not proven in any sense of the word.Asana, I feel your pain when you said you hesitated to even become involved in this discussion, as I'm often wishing I hadn't.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
