Discussion:
Outraged Creationists Ready To Go On More Shooting Sprees!!! Ancient Infant Ape Skull Sheds Light on the Ancestor of All Humans and Living Apes
(too old to reply)
Just Wondering
2017-08-19 00:41:41 UTC
Permalink
And given even a sub-infinitesimal possibility, over enough time and
enough events it becomes an all but certain occurrence.
No, that's not how it works.  Quantum physics suggests there is a
non-zero probability that all the air in an uncontained 1,000,000 cubic
That's not how probability or transfinites work.
To compute probability you need to have your sets well enough
numerically
defined to be able sum or integrate them. Approximate numbers are
sufficient for
approximate probability, but you have to have numbers.
Also infinite sets do not have to have equal cardinality. It might be
that the
set of realisable configurations is enumerable but the set of
configurations is
nonenumerable. Then the a priori probability of a possible
configuration being
realised is zero not one.
You didn't refute JW's point.
Like AGW scammers, bio-illogicists and their evolunian followers
declare something did/will happen because they imagined it "could"
happen.
Which seems no different than Creationists.
After all, God "could" exist, and God "could" have decided to create
life, and God "could" have decided that Earth was a place to do it, and
God "could" have decided to have a book written about it......
Creationism is nothing but assertion of what "could" happen.
The problem is Creationism doesn't explain the fossil record.
Neither does evolution explain the fossil record as a purely factual
matter, it requires a great deal of faith to believe in evolution based
on the fossil record.
Just Wondering
2017-08-19 00:49:40 UTC
Permalink
"Scout" wrote"
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living
thing tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility
And given even a sub-infinitesimal possibility, over enough time and
enough events it becomes an all but certain occurrence.
No, that's not how it works.  Quantum physics suggests there is a
non-zero probability that all the air in an uncontained 1,000,000
cubic yard sphere will spontaneously move into a volume the size of a
golf ball, leaving a vacuum in the rest of the sphere that the rest of
the atmosphere will move around but never enter, and remain in that
state for a day.
While such an event is a non-zero probability under our limited
knowledge of quantum physics,  our knowledge of a period of time, and
space are so limited to say that it couldn't have occurred.. either here
or elsewhere.
I suppose very time you sit down to play poker you expect a least one
royal flush to appear?
You're the sort of person who's played 2 hands of poker and is
complaining they haven't seen a royal flush yet, and thus it must be
impossible.
You're the sort who likes to compare apples and oranges. The
probability of a royal flush can be calculated with mathematical
certainty as 649,739 to 1 or 0.000154 %. They can and do occur
infrequently but with some regularity. The probability of life
as we observe it having occurred by chance can't be calculated
but it may well be a big fat zero percent, and you can't prove
that the probability is non-zero.
Scout
2017-08-19 02:19:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
"Scout" wrote"
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living
thing tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the sub-infinitesimal
possibility
And given even a sub-infinitesimal possibility, over enough time and
enough events it becomes an all but certain occurrence.
No, that's not how it works. Quantum physics suggests there is a
non-zero probability that all the air in an uncontained 1,000,000 cubic
yard sphere will spontaneously move into a volume the size of a golf
ball, leaving a vacuum in the rest of the sphere that the rest of the
atmosphere will move around but never enter, and remain in that state
for a day.
While such an event is a non-zero probability under our limited knowledge
of quantum physics, our knowledge of a period of time, and space are so
limited to say that it couldn't have occurred.. either here or elsewhere.
I suppose very time you sit down to play poker you expect a least one
royal flush to appear?
You're the sort of person who's played 2 hands of poker and is
complaining they haven't seen a royal flush yet, and thus it must be
impossible.
You're the sort who likes to compare apples and oranges. The
probability of a royal flush can be calculated with mathematical certainty
as 649,739 to 1 or 0.000154 %.
Ah, so as long as the improbable odds can be calculated exactly...then they
aren't improbable.

<snicker>

What are the odds of Creationism?
Just Wondering
2017-08-21 00:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
"Scout" wrote"
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living
thing tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility
And given even a sub-infinitesimal possibility, over enough time
and enough events it becomes an all but certain occurrence.
No, that's not how it works.  Quantum physics suggests there is a
non-zero probability that all the air in an uncontained 1,000,000
cubic yard sphere will spontaneously move into a volume the size of
a golf ball, leaving a vacuum in the rest of the sphere that the
rest of the atmosphere will move around but never enter, and remain
in that state for a day.
While such an event is a non-zero probability under our limited
knowledge of quantum physics,  our knowledge of a period of time, and
space are so limited to say that it couldn't have occurred.. either
here or elsewhere.
I suppose very time you sit down to play poker you expect a least one
royal flush to appear?
You're the sort of person who's played 2 hands of poker and is
complaining they haven't seen a royal flush yet, and thus it must be
impossible.
You're the sort who likes to compare apples and oranges.  The
probability of a royal flush can be calculated with mathematical
certainty as 649,739 to 1 or 0.000154 %.
Ah, so as long as the improbable odds can be calculated
exactly...then they aren't improbable.
No. A probability of 0.000154% is improbable, it just isn't impossible.
Post by Scout
What are the odds of Creationism?
1 or 100%, and you can't prove it isn't.
Scout
2017-08-21 02:28:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
"Scout" wrote"
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living
thing tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility
And given even a sub-infinitesimal possibility, over enough time and
enough events it becomes an all but certain occurrence.
No, that's not how it works. Quantum physics suggests there is a
non-zero probability that all the air in an uncontained 1,000,000
cubic yard sphere will spontaneously move into a volume the size of a
golf ball, leaving a vacuum in the rest of the sphere that the rest of
the atmosphere will move around but never enter, and remain in that
state for a day.
While such an event is a non-zero probability under our limited
knowledge of quantum physics, our knowledge of a period of time, and
space are so limited to say that it couldn't have occurred.. either
here or elsewhere.
I suppose very time you sit down to play poker you expect a least one
royal flush to appear?
You're the sort of person who's played 2 hands of poker and is
complaining they haven't seen a royal flush yet, and thus it must be
impossible.
You're the sort who likes to compare apples and oranges. The
probability of a royal flush can be calculated with mathematical
certainty as 649,739 to 1 or 0.000154 %.
Ah, so as long as the improbable odds can be calculated exactly...then
they aren't improbable.
No. A probability of 0.000154% is improbable, it just isn't impossible.
Post by Scout
What are the odds of Creationism?
1 or 100%, and you can't prove it isn't.
Excellent, so zero proof of Creationism.
Just Wondering
2017-08-19 00:54:01 UTC
Permalink
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every
living thing tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Sounds like a denier.
It's a conjecture that cannot currently be proven or refuted.
Yep. The key difference between evolution and creationism, is that
evolution depends on and conforms with our understanding of reality,
chemical energy interactions, mutation, adaptation and fossil records.
Not without a huge dose of faith, it doesn't.
Creationism on the other hand depends on a singular event by an entity
for which there is no evidence and theory doesn't explain the fossil
record.
You say that because you see the facts but reject them as evidence.
Just because you reject the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Scout
2017-08-19 02:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living
thing tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Sounds like a denier.
It's a conjecture that cannot currently be proven or refuted.
Yep. The key difference between evolution and creationism, is that
evolution depends on and conforms with our understanding of reality,
chemical energy interactions, mutation, adaptation and fossil records.
Not without a huge dose of faith, it doesn't.
Depend on how fully you accept it. If you think it's a proven fact, then
it's a lot of faith. If you merely believe it's the best theory that
currently exists...then very little faith is needed.

Creationism seems to exist only with a massive dose of faith.

So it you're opposed to faith...what do you call yours?
Just Wondering
2017-08-21 00:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living
thing tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Sounds like a denier.
It's a conjecture that cannot currently be proven or refuted.
Yep. The key difference between evolution and creationism, is that
evolution depends on and conforms with our understanding of reality,
chemical energy interactions, mutation, adaptation and fossil records.
Not without a huge dose of faith, it doesn't.
Depend on how fully you accept it. If you think it's a proven fact,
then it's a lot of faith. If you merely believe it's the best theory
that currently exists...then very little faith is needed.
You undervalue the amount of faith it requires, not my problem.
Post by Scout
Creationism seems to exist only with a massive dose of faith.
So it you're opposed to faith...what do you call yours?
Who said I'm opposed to faith? I'm just pointing out the irony
of you rejecting creationism because it requires faith while
embracing evolution although it also requires great faith.
Scout
2017-08-21 02:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
Post by Just Wondering
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living
thing tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Sounds like a denier.
It's a conjecture that cannot currently be proven or refuted.
Yep. The key difference between evolution and creationism, is that
evolution depends on and conforms with our understanding of reality,
chemical energy interactions, mutation, adaptation and fossil records.
Not without a huge dose of faith, it doesn't.
Depend on how fully you accept it. If you think it's a proven fact, then
it's a lot of faith. If you merely believe it's the best theory that
currently exists...then very little faith is needed.
You undervalue the amount of faith it requires, not my problem.
On the contrary, my faith is in science to work towards figuring it out to
the limits of our facts, evidence and knowledge.
Sure theories may change, alter, modified, revamped, revised and even
replaced, but the process is currently the best one know for unraveling the
secrets of the universe.

Yours on the other hand, shows nothing but what you believe and resists and
ignores that which doesn't fit into that belief.
Scout
2017-08-19 00:50:04 UTC
Permalink
But a probability of .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001
that this happened is close enough to zero to raise some doubt
that life resulted by chance.
Hmmm..
Let's say one chance every second for each square inch of the
planet....how long until the probability of life becomes all but certain?
Low probabilities simply means you need a longer time scale and/or a lot
of chances per unit of time.
Then any probability will eventually become a near certainty.
No it doesn't. Probability isn't additive that way.
Sure it does

Flip a coin. 50% chance it will come up heads.
Flip a coin twice 75% chance it will come up heads at least once
Flip a coin 4 times 93.75% chance it will come up heads at least once.

The more times you flip the higher your probability that heads will come up
at least once.

Of course, it never becomes a 100% chance, but can become so close that the
chance of it not occurring is infinitesimal. Indeed it is exactly that sort
of function that we use to make atomic bombs. Any particular neutron has
only a certain chance of striking another atom and causing it to split.
Throw enough neutrons around and/or increase the odds of splitting another
atom and the probability of a chain reaction becomes all but certain.
Scout
2017-08-19 00:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Yet you want to claim evolution is a science and not faith-based.
Evolution is still an observed process, not a science or faith or theory
or any
other crap. It is simply an observation anyone with a smidgen of honesty
can
make.
Who has observed a single-celled organism becoming an elephant ... or
a tree.
Anyone that has watched the development of a zygote into an elephant.

Indeed, I bet at one time YOU were a single-celled organism.

Are you claiming you don't exist?
Scout
2017-08-19 00:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Yet you want to claim evolution is a science and not faith-based.
Evolution is still an observed process, not a science or faith or
theory or
any
other crap. It is simply an observation anyone with a smidgen of
honesty can
make.
Who has observed a single-celled organism becoming an elephant ... or
a tree.
So.............smidgenless.
Nope ... the AGW scammers have shown me what bullshit science looks
like.
So tell us what sort of science does Creationism look like?
Andrew
2017-08-19 05:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
So tell us what sort of science does Creationism look like?
Creationism is a 'model' for the explanation of "origins".

Both Creationism and the no-Creator model have the
same evidence.

So, the honest student will say, "Which model is best
supported by--> all of the evidence."

One of the greatest atheist apologists of all time has, in
his honesty, finally conceded that, the evidence shows
that life had an intelligent causation.

--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XwjcFgl9l4
Scout
2017-08-20 02:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
So tell us what sort of science does Creationism look like?
Creationism is a 'model' for the explanation of "origins".
Great....now all you have to do is show that your 'model' explains all known
facts and produce supporting evidence to explain how the process worked.

Have you accomplish ANY of that?
Post by Andrew
Both Creationism and the no-Creator model have the same evidence.
Except, one shows changes occurring over time.....the other can't explain
those changes over time.

We have evidence that changes occur over time.
Post by Andrew
So, the honest student will say, "Which model is best
supported by--> all of the evidence."
Exactly. Creationism isn't supported by the evidence. Indeed Creationism
can't explain the facts we have.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-20 03:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
So tell us what sort of science does Creationism look like?
Creationism is a 'model' for the explanation of "origins".
Both Creationism and the no-Creator model have the
same evidence.
So, the honest student will say, "Which model is best
supported by--> all of the evidence."
One of the greatest atheist apologists of all time has, in
his honesty, finally conceded that, the evidence shows
that life had an intelligent causation.
--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XwjcFgl9l4
"One of the greatest atheist apologists of all time"? Seriously?

In point of actual fact, every time Flew's name is brought
up here by some proselytizer, the atheists here basically
say "Who"? I myself was aware of all this, but only because
I was reading Paul Kurtz's "Free Inquiry" at the time.
If anyone would fit that description, it would be Bertrand Russell.

Anyhow, yep: God...and nothing at all like your version:

"He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still
quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do
not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and
definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by
everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can
You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly
persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this
universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs,
nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he
has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a
distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be
conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards
the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that,
at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a
universe exists that can produce complex life."

-- https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/antony-flew-considers-godsort-of-369.html


May Anthony Flew's distant, impersonal, and unconscious force be with you.


Atlatl Axolotl
Andrew
2017-08-21 06:11:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
So tell us what sort of science does Creationism look like?
Creationism is a 'model' for the explanation of "origins".
Both Creationism and the no-Creator model have the
same evidence.
So, the honest student will say, "Which model is best
supported by--> all of the evidence."
One of the greatest atheist apologists of all time has, in
his honesty, finally conceded that, the evidence shows
that life had an intelligent causation.
--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XwjcFgl9l4
"One of the greatest atheist apologists of all time"? Seriously?
Yes, "one of"

Name several others who would be considered greater atheist
apologists.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
In point of actual fact, every time Flew's name is brought
up here by some proselytizer, the atheists here basically
say "Who"? I myself was aware of all this, but only because
I was reading Paul Kurtz's "Free Inquiry" at the time.
If anyone would fit that description, it would be Bertrand Russell.
Was not claimed to be.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
"He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still
quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do
not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and
definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by
everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can
You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly
persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this
universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs,
nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he
has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a
distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be
conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards
the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that,
at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a
universe exists that can produce complex life."
-- https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/antony-flew-considers-godsort-of-369.html
May Anthony Flew's distant, impersonal, and unconscious force be with you.
Atlatl Axolotl
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-21 15:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
So tell us what sort of science does Creationism look like?
Creationism is a 'model' for the explanation of "origins".
Both Creationism and the no-Creator model have the
same evidence.
So, the honest student will say, "Which model is best
supported by--> all of the evidence."
One of the greatest atheist apologists of all time has, in
his honesty, finally conceded that, the evidence shows
that life had an intelligent causation.
--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XwjcFgl9l4
"One of the greatest atheist apologists of all time"? Seriously?
Yes, "one of"
Name several others who would be considered greater atheist
apologists.
Russel, as I mentioned. Dennet. Kurtz. Grayling. Rowe.
How many would you like?
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
In point of actual fact, every time Flew's name is brought
up here by some proselytizer, the atheists here basically
say "Who"? I myself was aware of all this, but only because
I was reading Paul Kurtz's "Free Inquiry" at the time.
If anyone would fit that description, it would be Bertrand Russell.
Was not claimed to be.
So then you're criticizing atheism by bringing up someone
who believes that God is a distant impersonal force with zero
interest in humans, one which, in fact, may not even be conscious?

Well, allrighty then. Keep it up. Please.

A.A.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
"He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still
quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do
not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and
definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by
everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can
You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly
persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this
universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs,
nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he
has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a
distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be
conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards
the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that,
at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a
universe exists that can produce complex life."
-- https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/antony-flew-considers-godsort-of-369.html
May Anthony Flew's distant, impersonal, and unconscious force be with you.
Atlatl Axolotl
Andrew
2017-08-22 03:24:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
So tell us what sort of science does Creationism look like?
Creationism is a 'model' for the explanation of "origins".
Both Creationism and the no-Creator model have the
same evidence.
So, the honest student will say, "Which model is best
supported by--> all of the evidence."
One of the greatest atheist apologists of all time has, in
his honesty, finally conceded that, the evidence shows
that life had an intelligent causation.
--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XwjcFgl9l4
"One of the greatest atheist apologists of all time"? Seriously?
Yes, "one of"
Name several others who would be considered greater atheist
apologists.
Russel, as I mentioned. Dennet. Kurtz. Grayling. Rowe.
Russell was agnostic, not atheist.

Dennet, not a "greater apologist" than Flew.

Kurts, humanism is 'not' the same as atheism.

Grayling, close maybe.

Rowe, no.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
How many would you like?
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
In point of actual fact, every time Flew's name is brought
up here by some proselytizer, the atheists here basically
say "Who"? I myself was aware of all this, but only because
I was reading Paul Kurtz's "Free Inquiry" at the time.
If anyone would fit that description, it would be Bertrand Russell.
Was not claimed to be.
So then you're criticizing atheism by bringing up someone
who believes that God is a distant impersonal force with zero
interest in humans, one which, in fact, may not even be conscious?
Well, allrighty then. Keep it up. Please.
Now tell us about your 'God'.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
A.A.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
"He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still
quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do
not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and
definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by
everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can
You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly
persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this
universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs,
nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he
has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a
distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be
conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards
the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that,
at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a
universe exists that can produce complex life."
-- https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/antony-flew-considers-godsort-of-369.html
May Anthony Flew's distant, impersonal, and unconscious force be with you.
Atlatl Axolotl
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-22 16:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
So tell us what sort of science does Creationism look like?
Creationism is a 'model' for the explanation of "origins".
Both Creationism and the no-Creator model have the
same evidence.
So, the honest student will say, "Which model is best
supported by--> all of the evidence."
One of the greatest atheist apologists of all time has, in
his honesty, finally conceded that, the evidence shows
that life had an intelligent causation.
--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XwjcFgl9l4
"One of the greatest atheist apologists of all time"? Seriously?
Yes, "one of"
.
.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Name several others who would be considered greater atheist
apologists.
Russel, as I mentioned. Dennet. Kurtz. Grayling. Rowe.
.
Post by Andrew
Russell was agnostic, not atheist.
"I think [God] is on exactly the same level as the Olympic gods,
or the Norwegian gods, they also may exist." If that's good
enough for you, it's good enough for me. Praise Odin Allfather!
Post by Andrew
Dennet, not a "greater apologist" than Flew.
Kurts, humanism is 'not' the same as atheism.
I'm not sure who this "Kurts" is, but Paul Kurtz said
"You can call me a skeptic, a non-theist, an atheist, an agnostic, a skeptical, agnostic atheist..."
and yes, then said that "secular humanist" was the best term.
Post by Andrew
Grayling, close maybe.
Rowe, no.
Oh? Why not?



And how many people do you know who ever even heard
of Antony Flew? I'm guessing that number is exactly "one". Me.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
How many would you like?
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
In point of actual fact, every time Flew's name is brought
up here by some proselytizer, the atheists here basically
say "Who"? I myself was aware of all this, but only because
I was reading Paul Kurtz's "Free Inquiry" at the time.
If anyone would fit that description, it would be Bertrand Russell.
Was not claimed to be.
So then you're criticizing atheism by bringing up someone
who believes that God is a distant impersonal force with zero
interest in humans, one which, in fact, may not even be conscious?
Well, allrighty then. Keep it up. Please.
Now tell us about your 'God'.
Alrighty then. Here we go. Ready? (you may want to take notes)










Want me to repeat that?

A.A.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
A.A.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
"He affirms that he is not a Christian--he is still
quite certain that the Gods of Christianity or Islam do
not exist, that there is no revealed religion, and
definitely no afterlife of any kind (he stands by
everything he argued in his 2001 book Merely Mortal: Can
You Survive Your Own Death?). But he is increasingly
persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this
universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs,
nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he
has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a
distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be
conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards
the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that,
at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a
universe exists that can produce complex life."
-- https://infidels.org/kiosk/article/antony-flew-considers-godsort-of-369.html
May Anthony Flew's distant, impersonal, and unconscious force be with you.
Atlatl Axolotl
Andrew
2017-08-22 19:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
And how many people do you know who ever even heard
of Antony Flew? I'm guessing that number is exactly "one".
Me.
Because he was from a different era.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-22 19:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
And how many people do you know who ever even heard
of Antony Flew? I'm guessing that number is exactly "one".
Me.
Because he was from a different era.
All the brouhaha over his declaring that he had become
a deist was about a dozen years ago. Most people alive
today could have heard of it. How many do you know who did?

"Deist" of course being the pivotal word here. Why
you would want to bring up a philosopher who decided the
world might have been set up by some force that had no
interest in us, that is perhaps not even conscious, I have no idea.

Unless of course you didn't look far enough into it
to understand that "...he is still quite certain that the
Gods of Christianity or Islam do not exist, that there is no
revealed religion, and definitely no afterlife of any kind".
Or perhaps you did realize this, but dishonestly decided to
omit that part; only you can tell.

AA
Scout
2017-08-20 23:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
So tell us what sort of science does Creationism look like?
Creationism is a 'model' for the explanation of "origins".
Both Creationism and the no-Creator model have the same evidence.
So, the honest student will say, "Which model is best
supported by--> all of the evidence."
One of the greatest atheist apologists of all time has, in his honesty,
finally conceded that, the evidence shows
that life had an intelligent causation.
--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XwjcFgl9l4
And who created this intelligent being you claim caused creation?

Oops, looks like a little fly in your theory there.
Andrew
2017-08-21 06:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
So tell us what sort of science does Creationism look like?
Creationism is a 'model' for the explanation of "origins".
Both Creationism and the no-Creator model have the same evidence.
So, the honest student will say, "Which model is best supported
by--> all of the evidence." One of the greatest atheist apologists
of all time has, in his honesty, finally conceded that, the evidence
shows that life had an intelligent causation.
--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XwjcFgl9l4
And who created this intelligent being you claim caused creation?
Are you now beginning to see the light [evidence]?
Scout
2017-08-21 06:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
So tell us what sort of science does Creationism look like?
Creationism is a 'model' for the explanation of "origins".
Both Creationism and the no-Creator model have the same evidence.
So, the honest student will say, "Which model is best supported
by--> all of the evidence." One of the greatest atheist apologists of
all time has, in his honesty, finally conceded that, the evidence
shows that life had an intelligent causation.
--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XwjcFgl9l4
And who created this intelligent being you claim caused creation?
Are you now beginning to see the light [evidence]?
Right, you've just postulated that someone had to create God, then you're
going to need someone to create the someone who created God...and someone to
create someone to create the someone who created God.....

Seems if life can't exist without intelligent design....then you've got an
endless string of loops to prove.
Scout
2017-08-21 22:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
So tell us what sort of science does Creationism look like?
Creationism is a 'model' for the explanation of "origins".
Both Creationism and the no-Creator model have the same evidence.
So, the honest student will say, "Which model is best supported
by--> all of the evidence." One of the greatest atheist apologists of
all time has, in his honesty, finally conceded that, the evidence
shows that life had an intelligent causation.
--> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XwjcFgl9l4
And who created this intelligent being you claim caused creation?
Are you now beginning to see the light [evidence]?
Right, you've just postulated that someone had to create God, then you're
going to need someone to create the someone who created God...and someone
to create someone to create the someone who created God.....
Seems if life can't exist without intelligent design....then you've got an
endless string of loops to prove.
<crickets>
Scout
2017-08-19 01:20:53 UTC
Permalink
But a probability of .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001
The probability is not currently computable. Any argument depending on a
noncomputable is not mathematical sound. Arguments for and against are
emotional, not rational.
Which means any number I might give, like the one above, is as good as
another. Yet evolutionists argue that given all the chemical reactions
that might occur over a billion years, the probability is not so small
after all.
Flip a coin. 50% chance it will come up heads
Flip a coin twice. 75% chance it will come up heads at least once
Flip a coin 4 times 93.75% chance it will come up heads at least once.
Flip a coin 10 times over a 99.99% chance it will come up heads at least
once.

Now try rolling a pair of dice and NOT getting box cars.

How many rolls until there is a 99.99% chance you will have rolled them at
least once?

Not as many as you think.
Scout
2017-08-19 01:25:49 UTC
Permalink
You observed dinosaurs morph to birds?
We have observed the evolution of wheat, pigs, influenza, and other life
over
the last five thousand years. We can observe the evolution of DNA over
multiple
thousands of years.
Selective breeding of pigs is not random evolution making complexity
from lesser forms.
But who says evolution is purely random?
If you are arguing against random evolution, are you arguing for
intelligent design?
No, because it the change doesn't increase survival then it's going to die
out.

Which means evolution isn't random. Rather it's governed by survival and
those organism that survive will reproduce the characteristics that allowed
them to survive, and those that don't will not.

I suppose for you the fact that water doesn't run uphill has nothing to do
with physics, but because it's the result of 'intelligent design'.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-19 02:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Neither does evolution explain the fossil record as a purely factual
matter
How the fuck does anything explain the fossil record as a 'purely factual
matter'? Except maybe Clara and her time travelling resturaunt.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Siri Cruise
2017-08-19 02:37:43 UTC
Permalink
I think you're using a definition of evolution that says adaption of an
The definition of evolution is change over time. Biological evolution is
the
change of life over time. Any other crap is you trying to confuse the
matter.
The claim to the sole right to define terms is denied.
It's the plain meaning the words. It's only you silly creationists refusing
to
use the same meaning as rest of the english speaking world because you got
your
butt handed to you.
Show any other usage of 'evolution' which doesn't mean 'change over time'.
Show
any other usage of 'biological' which doesn't mean 'living'.
Again, the game of AGW scammers in different clothing: what magnitude
of change and to what effect are the changes significant?
Any change. The evolving crisis with DPRK. The evolving tactics in Afghanistan.
The evolving news from Charlottesville. The evolving dementia of Ridley Scott.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Wally W.
2017-08-19 02:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
I think you're using a definition of evolution that says adaption of an
The definition of evolution is change over time. Biological evolution is
the
change of life over time. Any other crap is you trying to confuse the
matter.
The claim to the sole right to define terms is denied.
It's the plain meaning the words. It's only you silly creationists refusing
to
use the same meaning as rest of the english speaking world because you got
your
butt handed to you.
Show any other usage of 'evolution' which doesn't mean 'change over time'.
Show
any other usage of 'biological' which doesn't mean 'living'.
Again, the game of AGW scammers in different clothing: what magnitude
of change and to what effect are the changes significant?
Any change.
So you became a new species by passing through puberty?
Post by Siri Cruise
The evolving crisis with DPRK. The evolving tactics in Afghanistan.
The evolving news from Charlottesville. The evolving dementia of Ridley Scott.
You're not even trying anymore, are you?
Andrew
2017-08-19 05:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Yes, and some mutations are beneficial, and some
are not, and some have no real impact either way.
Mutations are not a mechanism for macro-evolution.

When cells divide there are "spell checkers" that
correct mistakes in the process. Explain how did
evolution evolve a mechanism that will ~prevent~
evolution from occurring?

http://www.crg.eu/en/news/%E2%80%98dna-spellchecker%E2%80%99-means-our-genes-aren%E2%80%99t-all-equally-likely-mutate-and-cause-disease
Scout
2017-08-20 02:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Yes, and some mutations are beneficial, and some
are not, and some have no real impact either way.
Mutations are not a mechanism for macro-evolution.
Didn't read your source below, did you?
Post by Andrew
When cells divide there are "spell checkers" that
correct mistakes in the process. Explain how did
evolution evolve a mechanism that will ~prevent~
evolution from occurring?
http://www.crg.eu/en/news/%E2%80%98dna-spellchecker%E2%80%99-means-our-genes-aren%E2%80%99t-all-equally-likely-mutate-and-cause-disease
The "spell checkers" prevent SOME of the mistakes in the process, and are
more likely to do so in some parts of the genome than in other parts.

Doesn't mean mutations do not and can not occur.

Your own cite states they do.

So, you make a false assertion, then post a cite that proves you're wrong,
and you don't catch it.

Then you wonder why anyone would question your understanding of science and
your opinions on the validity of evolution as a scientific theory.
Andrew
2017-08-21 06:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Yes, and some mutations are beneficial, and some
are not, and some have no real impact either way.
Mutations are not a mechanism for macro-evolution.
Didn't read your source below, did you?
Post by Andrew
When cells divide there are "spell checkers" that
correct mistakes in the process. Explain how did
evolution evolve a mechanism that will ~prevent~
evolution from occurring?
The explanation is that, it was not [could not have been]
created by evolution.
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
http://www.crg.eu/en/news/%E2%80%98dna-spellchecker%E2%80%99-means-our-genes-aren%E2%80%99t-all-equally-likely-mutate-and-cause-disease
The "spell checkers" prevent SOME of the mistakes in the process, and are more likely to do so in some parts of the genome than in
other parts.
Doesn't mean mutations do not and can not occur.
Yes, some mutations do get through.

If it wasn't for these "spell checker machines", we would not be here.
Post by Scout
Your own cite states they do.
Because they do.

"Bio-Spell Checker Machines" ---> evidence for Creation.

They prevent the majority of mutations. And they are simply another
roadblock for the defunct idea of macro-evolution to ever occur.Yet
you cling to your cherished deception, showing that you are willingly
-->deceived.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-21 15:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Yes, and some mutations are beneficial, and some
are not, and some have no real impact either way.
Mutations are not a mechanism for macro-evolution.
Didn't read your source below, did you?
Post by Andrew
When cells divide there are "spell checkers" that
correct mistakes in the process. Explain how did
evolution evolve a mechanism that will ~prevent~
evolution from occurring?
The explanation is that, it was not [could not have been]
created by evolution.
Evolution could not produce imperfect error correcting mechanisms?

Why not?


A.A.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
http://www.crg.eu/en/news/%E2%80%98dna-spellchecker%E2%80%99-means-our-genes-aren%E2%80%99t-all-equally-likely-mutate-and-cause-disease
The "spell checkers" prevent SOME of the mistakes in the process, and are more likely to do so in some parts of the genome than in
other parts.
Doesn't mean mutations do not and can not occur.
Yes, some mutations do get through.
If it wasn't for these "spell checker machines", we would not be here.
Post by Scout
Your own cite states they do.
Because they do.
"Bio-Spell Checker Machines" ---> evidence for Creation.
They prevent the majority of mutations. And they are simply another
roadblock for the defunct idea of macro-evolution to ever occur.Yet
you cling to your cherished deception, showing that you are willingly
-->deceived.
Andrew
2017-08-22 03:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Yes, and some mutations are beneficial, and some
are not, and some have no real impact either way.
Mutations are not a mechanism for macro-evolution.
Didn't read your source below, did you?
Post by Andrew
When cells divide there are "spell checkers" that
correct mistakes in the process. Explain how did
evolution evolve a mechanism that will ~prevent~
evolution from occurring?
The explanation is that, it was not [could not have been]
created by evolution.
Evolution could not produce imperfect error correcting mechanisms?
It's not that the mechanism is imperfect, but that it becomes overwhelmed.

Same thing happens with human made machines.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Why not?
A.A.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
http://www.crg.eu/en/news/%E2%80%98dna-spellchecker%E2%80%99-means-our-genes-aren%E2%80%99t-all-equally-likely-mutate-and-cause-disease
The "spell checkers" prevent SOME of the mistakes in the process, and are more likely to do so in some parts of the genome than
in
other parts.
Doesn't mean mutations do not and can not occur.
Yes, some mutations do get through.
If it wasn't for these "spell checker machines", we would not be here.
Post by Scout
Your own cite states they do.
Because they do.
"Bio-Spell Checker Machines" ---> evidence for Creation.
They prevent the majority of mutations. And they are simply another
roadblock for the defunct idea of macro-evolution to ever occur.Yet
you cling to your cherished deception, showing that you are willingly
-->deceived.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-22 16:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
Yes, and some mutations are beneficial, and some
are not, and some have no real impact either way.
Mutations are not a mechanism for macro-evolution.
Didn't read your source below, did you?
Post by Andrew
When cells divide there are "spell checkers" that
correct mistakes in the process. Explain how did
evolution evolve a mechanism that will ~prevent~
evolution from occurring?
.
.
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
The explanation is that, it was not [could not have been]
created by evolution.
Evolution could not produce imperfect error correcting mechanisms?
It's not that the mechanism is imperfect, but that it becomes overwhelmed.
Nothing of the sort. The rate of copying errors is about one in
every hundred million base pairs. That's 1 oopsie for every
100,000,000 good replications. Nothing is "overwhelmed".

Which is beside the point -- perfection means zero mistakes.
DNA repair mechanisms are very good: they catch 99 percent
of those errors. Which means they miss one percent. Which
means they're imperfect.

And beyond all that, DNA repair mechanisms can introduce errors
in the process.

You really do just make these claims up, don't you.

Besides which, none of that is relevant to my question, which was:
why do you claim that evolution could not have produced
error correction mechanisms, imperfect though they be?


A.A.
Post by Andrew
Same thing happens with human made machines.
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Why not?
A.A.
Post by Andrew
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
http://www.crg.eu/en/news/%E2%80%98dna-spellchecker%E2%80%99-means-our-genes-aren%E2%80%99t-all-equally-likely-mutate-and-cause-disease
The "spell checkers" prevent SOME of the mistakes in the process, and are more likely to do so in some parts of the genome than
in
other parts.
Doesn't mean mutations do not and can not occur.
Yes, some mutations do get through.
If it wasn't for these "spell checker machines", we would not be here.
Post by Scout
Your own cite states they do.
Because they do.
"Bio-Spell Checker Machines" ---> evidence for Creation.
They prevent the majority of mutations. And they are simply another
roadblock for the defunct idea of macro-evolution to ever occur.Yet
you cling to your cherished deception, showing that you are willingly
-->deceived.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-22 19:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Andrew
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Evolution could not produce imperfect error correcting mechanisms?
It's not that the mechanism is imperfect, but that it becomes overwhelmed.
Nothing of the sort. The rate of copying errors is about one in
every hundred million base pairs. That's 1 oopsie for every
100,000,000 good replications. Nothing is "overwhelmed".
Different organisms have different ability to correct. Perfect correction means
no variation and no adaptability. Too little correction and offspring don't have
functionning proteins and die. There's a range of correction that includes
adaptation and stable enough protein, where successful organisms are found.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-20 05:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Yes, and some mutations are beneficial, and some
are not, and some have no real impact either way.
Mutations are not a mechanism for macro-evolution.
When cells divide there are "spell checkers" that
correct mistakes in the process. Explain how did
evolution evolve a mechanism that will ~prevent~
evolution from occurring?
Why not? Evolution is not teleological. If it evolved
something that prevented further evolution, then so be it.
Many natural processes are self-limiting.

But as your own link shows, it didn't. It's an imperfect mechanism.
Mutations still get past it.

So your "Mutations are not a mechanism for macro-evolution"
is in no way supported by your link. It's just another of your
because-I-said-so's.

By the way, every newborn has, ballpark, 75-150 mutations.
Genes that differ from the same somatic genes in
both mommy and daddy. We're all mutants.

Somebody call Charles Xavier.

A.A.
Post by Andrew
http://www.crg.eu/en/news/%E2%80%98dna-spellchecker%E2%80%99-means-our-genes-aren%E2%80%99t-all-equally-likely-mutate-and-cause-disease
Siri Cruise
2017-08-20 15:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
both mommy and daddy. We're all mutants.
Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Andrew
2017-08-19 05:37:36 UTC
Permalink
The problem is Creationism doesn't explain the fossil record.
What you call the "fossil record" is the worldwide evidence
of a massive cataclysm that quickly buried massive amounts
of plants and animals in sedimentary material. It happened.
Scout
2017-08-20 02:32:24 UTC
Permalink
The problem is Creationism doesn't explain the fossil record.
What you call the "fossil record" is the worldwide evidence of a massive
cataclysm that quickly buried massive amounts
of plants and animals in sedimentary material. It happened.
Sure, over millions of years with creatures in the later parts being much
more complex than those of earlier parts.

The best part if how we can regularly find specific species in specific
strata spread across the entire planet. Amazing how those of particular
species managed to die first and the others managed to all survive until
later.

As I said, you can't explain the fossil record.
Andrew
2017-08-19 05:38:33 UTC
Permalink
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living thing
tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Believe what you will....but the facts are there.
And yet you not only can't produce these facts,
you can't even provide any evidence they could
even exist.
What *specific facts* are you questioning?
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
I do have evidence that it will occur.
Scout
2017-08-20 02:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living thing
tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Believe what you will....but the facts are there.
And yet you not only can't produce these facts, you can't even provide
any evidence they could even exist.
What *specific facts* are you questioning?
Don't know, you've not produced any facts showing Creationism occurred.
Andrew
2017-08-21 06:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by Andrew
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living thing
tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Believe what you will....but the facts are there.
And yet you not only can't produce these facts, you can't even provide
any evidence they could even exist.
What *specific facts* are you questioning?
Don't know, you've not produced any facts showing Creationism occurred.
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the origination of DNA.

The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the origination of stars.

The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the origination of matter.

There's more.

Lot's more!
Andrew
2017-08-19 14:06:10 UTC
Permalink
<>
The "curse" that came upon the creation from the Fall,
which we experience at this time, is-->temporary.
So the lion will lie down with the lamb --> some day.
The lion and the lamb were already lolling together
until
Until this element called "sin"entered the picture.
your God cursed them to become the eater and the eaten
Not uniquely but the order of things changed.
because of something neither of them did.
Everyone and all creatures die in this realm.
And you wonder why I call your God an evil God?
Because you want to justify yourself in your
rebellion against Him.
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-19 18:10:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
<>
The "curse" that came upon the creation from the Fall,
which we experience at this time, is-->temporary.
So the lion will lie down with the lamb --> some day.
The lion and the lamb were already lolling together
until
Until this element called "sin"entered the picture.
your God cursed them to become the eater and the eaten
Not uniquely but the order of things changed.
because of something neither of them did.
Everyone and all creatures die in this realm.
And you wonder why I call your God an evil God?
Because you want to justify yourself in your
rebellion against Him.
I shall take the fact that you -- again -- snipped out
everything you could not respond to as a demonstration
that you neither have answers for my points nor are
comfortable even thinking about them.


For the benefit of anyone bored enough to be reading
this thread (and don't you have better things to do?),
I'll restore the bits that Andrew really really doesn't want
to talk about:

. In any event: yes, I am quite familiar with the third
. chapter of Genesis. That's the one where the naive
. young couple, who have been prevented from understanding
. the difference between right and wrong -- kind of the
. whole point there -- who cannot tell right from wrong
. proceed to do something wrong, whereupon God inexplicably
. throws a gigantic tantrum and, instead of gently reproaching
. his hapless young children, curses them. Curses them to
. pain, toil, suffering, and death. And for good measure, figures
. that same curse should apply to every human being who
. will ever be born. Not a one of those yet-to-be-born
. were there at the time, of course, and had nothing to
. do with the minor slip-up, but then when you're a hot tempered
. grudge bearing and capricious God, so what: curse them all too.

. And hey: let's curse all the innocent animals too, while we're at it.
. Doesn't matter that not a single sparrow or sloth or marmoset
. or raccoon had a thing to do with what the humans did -- curse them all
. too. Curse them to become prey and predator, eater and eaten,
. Brief lives full of terror, blood, pain, and death.

Some "God" Andrew has there. But then again, this is the bind
you find yourself in when you take myths literally. It's like a Hellenic Greek
trying to rationalize away Zeus taking on animal form to rape mortal women.


AtlAxo
Gronk
2017-08-20 05:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Therefore the article you posted would be properly noted
to be labeled as fake news and fake science .
There is no mechanism for breathing on dirt and making a male human, nor
for taking a rib from said male and making a female human.
There, this bible stuff is #FakeFakeFake
Actually that last one, I could see some possible basis for.
After all, a male is defined by the XX chromosome. If you remove a rib
from that you end up with an XY chromosome which results in a female.
Er, the rib would have the same XX makeup. They do not change on their
own from one to the other. It would take.... magic ;)
Sometimes, I think the issue is that people take the language of the Bible
far to literally.
I often wonder if the difference is more in the limitations of the
language the Bible was written in, and even the conceptual limitations of
the person putting down the vision they saw.
Or it could just be seeing something that really doesn't exist.
Either way, I like to keep an open mind, and am willing to look at what
both sides have to offer.
There is more in the Universe than man knows or has even thought of.
Wally W.
2017-08-20 15:55:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gronk
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Therefore the article you posted would be properly noted
to be labeled as fake news and fake science .
There is no mechanism for breathing on dirt and making a male human, nor
for taking a rib from said male and making a female human.
There, this bible stuff is #FakeFakeFake
Actually that last one, I could see some possible basis for.
After all, a male is defined by the XX chromosome. If you remove a rib
from that you end up with an XY chromosome which results in a female.
Er, the rib would have the same XX makeup. They do not change on their
own from one to the other. It would take.... magic ;)
Actually, a miracle.

Magic implies cause and effect, such as a known response to the
spewing of an incantation.

A miracle is the divine orchestration of a remarkable
occurrence/string of natural events or a blessing, such as making the
first woman from the rib of the first man.
Post by Gronk
Sometimes, I think the issue is that people take the language of the Bible
far to literally.
I often wonder if the difference is more in the limitations of the
language the Bible was written in, and even the conceptual limitations of
the person putting down the vision they saw.
Or it could just be seeing something that really doesn't exist.
Either way, I like to keep an open mind, and am willing to look at what
both sides have to offer.
There is more in the Universe than man knows or has even thought of.
Scout
2017-08-20 23:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Gronk
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Therefore the article you posted would be properly noted
to be labeled as fake news and fake science .
There is no mechanism for breathing on dirt and making a male human, nor
for taking a rib from said male and making a female human.
There, this bible stuff is #FakeFakeFake
Actually that last one, I could see some possible basis for.
After all, a male is defined by the XX chromosome. If you remove a rib
from that you end up with an XY chromosome which results in a female.
Er, the rib would have the same XX makeup. They do not change on their
own from one to the other. It would take.... magic ;)
Actually, a miracle.
Magic implies cause and effect, such as a known response to the
spewing of an incantation.
A miracle is the divine orchestration of a remarkable
occurrence/string of natural events or a blessing, such as making the
first woman from the rib of the first man.
IOW, if one person does it then it's magic. If another does it then it's a
miracle.....all depending on whether the mob wants to burn alive or worship
said person.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-21 05:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gronk
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Therefore the article you posted would be properly noted
to be labeled as fake news and fake science .
There is no mechanism for breathing on dirt and making a male human, nor
for taking a rib from said male and making a female human.
There, this bible stuff is #FakeFakeFake
Actually that last one, I could see some possible basis for.
After all, a male is defined by the XX chromosome. If you remove a rib
from that you end up with an XY chromosome which results in a female.
Er, the rib would have the same XX makeup. They do not change on their
own from one to the other. It would take.... magic ;)
This is completely backward. Females are X-X and males are X-Y.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Atlatl Axolotl
2017-08-21 16:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Gronk
Another step forward in understanding ourselves.
If you want to understand our origins, it helps to understand that there
is no mechanism for us to have evolved from some
lower life form to ourselves via the fantasized evolutionary
pathway.
Therefore the article you posted would be properly noted
to be labeled as fake news and fake science .
There is no mechanism for breathing on dirt and making a male human, nor
for taking a rib from said male and making a female human.
There, this bible stuff is #FakeFakeFake
Actually that last one, I could see some possible basis for.
After all, a male is defined by the XX chromosome. If you remove a rib
from that you end up with an XY chromosome which results in a female.
Er, the rib would have the same XX makeup. They do not change on their
own from one to the other. It would take.... magic ;)
This is completely backward. Females are X-X and males are X-Y.
Even Jesus! Who had only 24 chromosomes! Twenty-three from
Mary, and one, His Y chromosome, from God! Ron Wyatt said so!
Because he had Jesus' DNA sequenced!!!

I swear, you cannot buy entertainment like this.

Wouldn't it have been even better if Wyatt had had the God chromosome
completely sequenced? Me, I'd want to know if it had nucleotides other
that the usual A, C, G, and T.

Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Jeanne Douglas
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Don Martin
2017-08-22 01:35:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 09:05:03 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
Post by Atlatl Axolotl
Wouldn't it have been even better if Wyatt had had the God chromosome
completely sequenced?
Shit, with complete sequencing we could build a complete Genesisic
Park and have constant replays of creation and destruction. Guaranteed
Big Box Office stuff!
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Gronk
2017-08-20 05:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
The case for theistic creation is at least as good as the case for
the
faith-based assertions about evolution.
It is not. Evolution explains how it happens. Theistic creaton does
not
explains anything. `God willed into existence` is fairytale.
It does not even says how.
Exactly.
Science addresses 'how'
So does Creation.
Describe in detail the exact processes by which life was created.
Post by Scout
theology claims 'who'
Yes.
Post by Scout
They aren't necessarily contradictory.
That's right. Not necessarily.
Which means you've just admitted that evolution could be true.
It is and is occurring now. The classic example being drug resistant
bacteria
Not a different species of bacteria. Evolution = evolution of species,
not adaptation within species.
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/poodle-cat-fluffy-feline/2013/06/24/id/511461/
Ok, and? A breed is not a species.
Yep, but it does show that such changes do occur....when enough such
changes occur and breed true, then you have a new species.
Let's imagine if we will that instead of strange fur, it was feathers. Now
the smaller lighter kittens would find that they could possibly leap and
glide away from danger, particularly if they were in a high place.
Survival would reinforce the characteristics of the most successful of
these. So such cats would get smaller and lighter. Existing
mutations/variations which hence this would become concentrated and added
to the genome. Additional mutations that can breed true could also occur.
In time....you have a new set of animals that even you would admit were a
new species.
I will simply note the "poodle cats" are already being recognized as a new
species due to the fact they are genetically unique from other cat
This does not make them a new species, just a new breed

http://www.ibtimes.com/poodle-cat-new-cat-breed-defined-its-curly-coat-selkirk-rex-traced-back-miss-depesto-photos-1320277

Speciation occurs, but there are definite mechanisms at work.

See

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

for a decent over view.

species
and their unique genetic characteristic not only breeds true, but is a
dominate gene thus even crosses will exhibit this characteristic. In time,
ordinary cats may all but disappear as their hair type now becomes the
recessive gene and could in time simply disappear from the genome of cats.
This is a clear example of evolution in action. Sure, it's a small step
and limited, but it demonstrates, in reality, the very process that
evolution says can occur. You asked for evidence, it's here.
Speciation
Gronk
2017-08-20 05:35:16 UTC
Permalink
I didn't say I know how it works.
You claim to know how evolution works ... and that it is *science*.
Inheritable DNA variations occur in organisms. We know many ways
variation are
created: radiation, some chemicals, retroviruses, human gene
engineering, etc.
Variations that disadvantage tend to reduce or elimenate the number of
offspring. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140319143936.htm
Variations that advantage tend to increase the number of offspring.
We know a lot about how it works.
And we even have evidence for the evolution of new species within very
recent history.
That sounds very nice. It only suffers from one tiny
difficulty - it isn't true.
Speciation is indeed being observed.

<https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=observed+speciation&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8>
Scout
2017-08-19 02:16:50 UTC
Permalink
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination
of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living
thing
tells you that it had an intelligent
causation.
Not really.
Sounds like a denier.
Yep, because there is ZERO evidence to support 'intelligent causation'
in
the formation of life.
For what cause that formed life do you have evidence?
What evidence do you have for a divine being, much less it's intervention
in
forming life?
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results." - Albert Einstein
Give it up. You are outclassed.
Not by you. Your insanity is claiming Creationism while you can't provide
the evidence you demand of Evolution.
Scout
2017-08-19 02:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
And given even a sub-infinitesimal possibility, over enough time and
enough events it becomes an all but certain occurrence.
No, that's not how it works. Quantum physics suggests there is a
non-zero probability that all the air in an uncontained 1,000,000 cubic
That's not how probability or transfinites work.
To compute probability you need to have your sets well enough
numerically
defined to be able sum or integrate them. Approximate numbers are
sufficient for
approximate probability, but you have to have numbers.
Also infinite sets do not have to have equal cardinality. It might be
that the
set of realisable configurations is enumerable but the set of
configurations is
nonenumerable. Then the a priori probability of a possible
configuration being
realised is zero not one.
You didn't refute JW's point.
Like AGW scammers, bio-illogicists and their evolunian followers
declare something did/will happen because they imagined it "could"
happen.
Which seems no different than Creationists.
After all, God "could" exist, and God "could" have decided to create
life, and God "could" have decided that Earth was a place to do it, and
God "could" have decided to have a book written about it......
Creationism is nothing but assertion of what "could" happen.
The problem is Creationism doesn't explain the fossil record.
Neither does evolution explain the fossil record as a purely factual
matter, it requires a great deal of faith to believe in evolution based on
the fossil record.
Hmm. We have animals. We have animals that are much like prior animals. We
have later animals that are like them...

HOW do you explain the fossil record with Creationism?
Scout
2017-08-19 02:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred by
chance,
is evidence that it did not arise by chance, and therefore is
evidence that it resulted from something other than chance.
There is no sound argument that it could or could not
happen by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
You may say that, but it does not alter the point that
the incomprehensible complexity of life and the sub-
infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred
by chance, is evidence that life resulted from something
other than chance.
1. There is no sound argument that it could happen
by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
apart from the fact it occurred
There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life necessarily began by chance.
"There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life was necessarily began by divine intervention."
No, I take the fact of the intricate complexity of life and the
statistical near-impossibility that that complexity occurred by chance
as evidence of a creator.
So better to believe in something you have no proof of, rather than to
believe in a improbable possibility?
You ask for proof of creationism while accepting a much lower evidentiary
standard for evolution. Your faith is remarkable.
On the contrary, I would be perfectly happy if you could supply similar
evidence for your theory..

So far, ZERO evidence has been produced for Creationism.

So zero evidence on one hand and some evidence on the other....

a
Just Wondering
2017-08-21 00:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
There's your problem.  You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life necessarily began by chance.
"There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life was necessarily began by divine intervention."
No, I take the fact of the intricate complexity of life and the
statistical near-impossibility that that complexity occurred by
chance as evidence of a creator.
So better to believe in something you have no proof of, rather than
to believe in a improbable possibility?
You ask for proof of creationism while accepting a much lower
evidentiary standard for evolution.  Your faith is remarkable.
On the contrary, I would be perfectly happy if you could
supply similar evidence for your theory..
So far, ZERO evidence has been produced for Creationism.
So zero evidence on one hand and some evidence on the other....
The facts are there as I already pointed out, you just reject
it as evidence of non-evolution. That's not my problem.
Since this discussion is becoming circular (going in
circles and getting nowhere), I'm done.
Scout
2017-08-21 02:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Scout
There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life necessarily began by chance.
"There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life was necessarily began by divine intervention."
No, I take the fact of the intricate complexity of life and the
statistical near-impossibility that that complexity occurred by chance
as evidence of a creator.
So better to believe in something you have no proof of, rather than to
believe in a improbable possibility?
You ask for proof of creationism while accepting a much lower
evidentiary standard for evolution. Your faith is remarkable.
On the contrary, I would be perfectly happy if you could supply similar
evidence for your theory..
So far, ZERO evidence has been produced for Creationism.
So zero evidence on one hand and some evidence on the other....
The facts are there as I already pointed out, you just reject
it as evidence of non-evolution.
Ah, so no facts to support Creationism.
duke
2017-08-22 17:28:39 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 22:21:42 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred by
chance,
is evidence that it did not arise by chance, and therefore is
evidence that it resulted from something other than chance.
There is no sound argument that it could or could not
happen by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
You may say that, but it does not alter the point that
the incomprehensible complexity of life and the sub-
infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred
by chance, is evidence that life resulted from something
other than chance.
1. There is no sound argument that it could happen
by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
apart from the fact it occurred
There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life necessarily began by chance.
"There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life was necessarily began by divine intervention."
No, I take the fact of the intricate complexity of life and the
statistical near-impossibility that that complexity occurred by chance
as evidence of a creator.
So better to believe in something you have no proof of, rather than to
believe in a improbable possibility?
You ask for proof of creationism while accepting a much lower evidentiary
standard for evolution. Your faith is remarkable.
On the contrary, I would be perfectly happy if you could supply similar
evidence for your theory..
So far, ZERO evidence has been produced for Creationism.
What do you mean by "creationism".

We have evidence galore, backing up our faith, that God created all things and
then let them evolve.


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-22 23:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 22:21:42 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred by
chance,
is evidence that it did not arise by chance, and therefore is
evidence that it resulted from something other than chance.
There is no sound argument that it could or could not
happen by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
You may say that, but it does not alter the point that
the incomprehensible complexity of life and the sub-
infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred
by chance, is evidence that life resulted from something
other than chance.
1. There is no sound argument that it could happen
by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
apart from the fact it occurred
There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life necessarily began by chance.
"There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life was necessarily began by divine intervention."
No, I take the fact of the intricate complexity of life and the
statistical near-impossibility that that complexity occurred by chance
as evidence of a creator.
So better to believe in something you have no proof of, rather than to
believe in a improbable possibility?
You ask for proof of creationism while accepting a much lower evidentiary
standard for evolution. Your faith is remarkable.
On the contrary, I would be perfectly happy if you could supply similar
evidence for your theory..
So far, ZERO evidence has been produced for Creationism.
What do you mean by "creationism".
We have evidence galore, backing up our faith, that God created all things and
then let them evolve.
Which is possible, assuming one could establish evidence that God exists.

Further if God created all things......who created God?
duke
2017-08-23 18:08:34 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:30 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 22:21:42 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred by
chance,
is evidence that it did not arise by chance, and therefore is
evidence that it resulted from something other than chance.
There is no sound argument that it could or could not
happen by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
You may say that, but it does not alter the point that
the incomprehensible complexity of life and the sub-
infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred
by chance, is evidence that life resulted from something
other than chance.
1. There is no sound argument that it could happen
by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
apart from the fact it occurred
There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life necessarily began by chance.
"There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life was necessarily began by divine intervention."
No, I take the fact of the intricate complexity of life and the
statistical near-impossibility that that complexity occurred by chance
as evidence of a creator.
So better to believe in something you have no proof of, rather than to
believe in a improbable possibility?
You ask for proof of creationism while accepting a much lower evidentiary
standard for evolution. Your faith is remarkable.
On the contrary, I would be perfectly happy if you could supply similar
evidence for your theory..
So far, ZERO evidence has been produced for Creationism.
What do you mean by "creationism".
We have evidence galore, backing up our faith, that God created all
things and then let them evolve.
Which is possible, assuming one could establish evidence that God exists.
Already given that.
Post by Scout
Further if God created all things......who created God?
No man knows.
the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-24 00:06:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:30 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 22:21:42 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred by
chance,
is evidence that it did not arise by chance, and therefore is
evidence that it resulted from something other than chance.
There is no sound argument that it could or could not
happen by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
You may say that, but it does not alter the point that
the incomprehensible complexity of life and the sub-
infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred
by chance, is evidence that life resulted from something
other than chance.
1. There is no sound argument that it could happen
by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
apart from the fact it occurred
There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life necessarily began by chance.
"There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life was necessarily began by divine intervention."
No, I take the fact of the intricate complexity of life and the
statistical near-impossibility that that complexity occurred by chance
as evidence of a creator.
So better to believe in something you have no proof of, rather than to
believe in a improbable possibility?
You ask for proof of creationism while accepting a much lower evidentiary
standard for evolution. Your faith is remarkable.
On the contrary, I would be perfectly happy if you could supply similar
evidence for your theory..
So far, ZERO evidence has been produced for Creationism.
What do you mean by "creationism".
We have evidence galore, backing up our faith, that God created all
things and then let them evolve.
Which is possible, assuming one could establish evidence that God exists.
Already given that.
Sorry, simply asserting God's existence doesn't count.
Post by duke
Post by Scout
Further if God created all things......who created God?
No man knows.
Oh, so maybe he evolved from nothing?

Ah darn, that would mean your theory that it couldn't happen that way are
utterly wrong.
duke
2017-08-24 12:35:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:06:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:30 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 22:21:42 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred by
chance,
is evidence that it did not arise by chance, and therefore is
evidence that it resulted from something other than chance.
There is no sound argument that it could or could not
happen by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
You may say that, but it does not alter the point that
the incomprehensible complexity of life and the sub-
infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred
by chance, is evidence that life resulted from something
other than chance.
1. There is no sound argument that it could happen
by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
apart from the fact it occurred
There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life necessarily began by chance.
"There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life was necessarily began by divine intervention."
No, I take the fact of the intricate complexity of life and the
statistical near-impossibility that that complexity occurred by chance
as evidence of a creator.
So better to believe in something you have no proof of, rather than to
believe in a improbable possibility?
You ask for proof of creationism while accepting a much lower evidentiary
standard for evolution. Your faith is remarkable.
On the contrary, I would be perfectly happy if you could supply similar
evidence for your theory..
So far, ZERO evidence has been produced for Creationism.
What do you mean by "creationism".
We have evidence galore, backing up our faith, that God created all
things and then let them evolve.
Which is possible, assuming one could establish evidence that God exists.
Already given that.
Sorry, simply asserting God's existence doesn't count.
Sorry, science leaves us with the evidence of the big bang and the continuous
evolution of the universe for 13.8 billion years now.
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Scout
Further if God created all things......who created God?
No man knows.
Oh, so maybe he evolved from nothing?
Unlikely. "Nothingness" can't evolve on it's own.
Post by Scout
Ah darn, that would mean your theory that it couldn't happen that way are
utterly wrong.
the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-24 23:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:06:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:30 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 22:21:42 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred by
chance,
is evidence that it did not arise by chance, and therefore is
evidence that it resulted from something other than chance.
There is no sound argument that it could or could not
happen by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
You may say that, but it does not alter the point that
the incomprehensible complexity of life and the sub-
infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred
by chance, is evidence that life resulted from something
other than chance.
1. There is no sound argument that it could happen
by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
apart from the fact it occurred
There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life necessarily began by chance.
"There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life was necessarily began by divine intervention."
No, I take the fact of the intricate complexity of life and the
statistical near-impossibility that that complexity occurred by chance
as evidence of a creator.
So better to believe in something you have no proof of, rather than to
believe in a improbable possibility?
You ask for proof of creationism while accepting a much lower evidentiary
standard for evolution. Your faith is remarkable.
On the contrary, I would be perfectly happy if you could supply similar
evidence for your theory..
So far, ZERO evidence has been produced for Creationism.
What do you mean by "creationism".
We have evidence galore, backing up our faith, that God created all
things and then let them evolve.
Which is possible, assuming one could establish evidence that God exists.
Already given that.
Sorry, simply asserting God's existence doesn't count.
Sorry, science leaves us with the evidence of the big bang and the
continuous
evolution of the universe for 13.8 billion years now.
Of which there is evidence of.

God, on the other hand, lacks any scientific evidence so far.
Post by duke
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Scout
Further if God created all things......who created God?
No man knows.
Oh, so maybe he evolved from nothing?
Unlikely. "Nothingness" can't evolve on it's own.
Thus God can't exist, and if God can't exist then neither could humanity,
according to you.

Thus by your own analysis we can prove you wrong because humanity does
exist.
Post by duke
Post by Scout
Ah darn, that would mean your theory that it couldn't happen that way are
utterly wrong.
<static>
duke
2017-08-25 13:05:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:03:35 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:06:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:30 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 22:21:42 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred by
chance,
is evidence that it did not arise by chance, and therefore is
evidence that it resulted from something other than chance.
There is no sound argument that it could or could not
happen by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
You may say that, but it does not alter the point that
the incomprehensible complexity of life and the sub-
infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred
by chance, is evidence that life resulted from something
other than chance.
1. There is no sound argument that it could happen
by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
apart from the fact it occurred
There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life necessarily began by chance.
"There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life was necessarily began by divine intervention."
No, I take the fact of the intricate complexity of life and the
statistical near-impossibility that that complexity occurred by chance
as evidence of a creator.
So better to believe in something you have no proof of, rather than to
believe in a improbable possibility?
You ask for proof of creationism while accepting a much lower evidentiary
standard for evolution. Your faith is remarkable.
On the contrary, I would be perfectly happy if you could supply similar
evidence for your theory..
So far, ZERO evidence has been produced for Creationism.
What do you mean by "creationism".
We have evidence galore, backing up our faith, that God created all
things and then let them evolve.
Which is possible, assuming one could establish evidence that God exists.
Already given that.
Sorry, simply asserting God's existence doesn't count.
Sorry, science leaves us with the evidence of the big bang and the
continuous
evolution of the universe for 13.8 billion years now.
Of which there is evidence of.
God, on the other hand, lacks any scientific evidence so far.
Only God can pull off creation of all energy and matter.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-26 19:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:03:35 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:06:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:30 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 22:21:42 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred
by
chance,
is evidence that it did not arise by chance, and therefore
is
evidence that it resulted from something other than chance.
There is no sound argument that it could or could not
happen by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
You may say that, but it does not alter the point that
the incomprehensible complexity of life and the sub-
infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred
by chance, is evidence that life resulted from something
other than chance.
1. There is no sound argument that it could happen
by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
apart from the fact it occurred
There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life necessarily began by chance.
"There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life was necessarily began by divine
intervention."
No, I take the fact of the intricate complexity of life and the
statistical near-impossibility that that complexity occurred by chance
as evidence of a creator.
So better to believe in something you have no proof of, rather
than
to
believe in a improbable possibility?
You ask for proof of creationism while accepting a much lower evidentiary
standard for evolution. Your faith is remarkable.
On the contrary, I would be perfectly happy if you could supply similar
evidence for your theory..
So far, ZERO evidence has been produced for Creationism.
What do you mean by "creationism".
We have evidence galore, backing up our faith, that God created all
things and then let them evolve.
Which is possible, assuming one could establish evidence that God exists.
Already given that.
Sorry, simply asserting God's existence doesn't count.
Sorry, science leaves us with the evidence of the big bang and the
continuous
evolution of the universe for 13.8 billion years now.
Of which there is evidence of.
God, on the other hand, lacks any scientific evidence so far.
Only God can pull off creation of all energy and matter.
Proof?

Oh, that's right, you don't do proof, you don't even do evidence.....rather
it's "I believe....." in whatever empty assertion you want to make.
duke
2017-08-22 17:21:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 11:39:55 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:36:20 -0400, "Scout"
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:52:57 -0400, "Scout"
I didn't say I know how it works.
You claim to know how evolution works ... and that it is *science*.
Inheritable DNA variations occur in organisms. We know many ways
variation
are
created: radiation, some chemicals, retroviruses, human gene
engineering,
etc.
Variations that disadvantage tend to reduce or elimenate the number of
offspring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140319143936.htm
Variations that advantage tend to increase the number of offspring.
We know a lot about how it works.
Once upon a time, I would have played your game of discussing minor
variations while you extrapolate to a world teaming with more species
(plant and animal) than we have counted.
That we know this process occurs, means it will occur again...and
again....and again....it's just a matter of odds and time.
Not anymore.
Couldn't handle the fact that your only rebuttal was calling upon a
mythical
being?
Maybe God and Zeus can get together and have a party?
After all, we have as much proof of one as we do the other.
.
.
No, actually you have an inanimate statue for zeus.
And you have nothing for God...
Looks like Zeus is ahead on points.
Nope. God became flesh in the person of Jesus the Christ. Zeus is nothing more
than a block of concrete, or whatever it's made of.
"It"? What "it"? A statue of Zeus is no more Zeus himself than
a statue of Mary is Mary herself.
Well, that's true. But Jesus and Mary were both flesh and blood. Zeus never
was.
And as for becoming flesh? Not only did Zeus do that,
and not only did Zeus do that multiple times, He had a lot
more fun with it than Jesus did -- lots of got god sex with
mortal women.
Your idea is why it's called paganism.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
duke
2017-08-22 17:24:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:11:23 -0400, "Scout"
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:36:20 -0400, "Scout"
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:52:57 -0400, "Scout"
I didn't say I know how it works.
You claim to know how evolution works ... and that it is *science*.
Inheritable DNA variations occur in organisms. We know many ways
variation
are
created: radiation, some chemicals, retroviruses, human gene
engineering,
etc.
Variations that disadvantage tend to reduce or elimenate the number of
offspring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140319143936.htm
Variations that advantage tend to increase the number of offspring.
We know a lot about how it works.
Once upon a time, I would have played your game of discussing minor
variations while you extrapolate to a world teaming with more species
(plant and animal) than we have counted.
That we know this process occurs, means it will occur again...and
again....and again....it's just a matter of odds and time.
Not anymore.
Couldn't handle the fact that your only rebuttal was calling upon a
mythical
being?
Maybe God and Zeus can get together and have a party?
After all, we have as much proof of one as we do the other.
No, actually you have an inanimate statue for zeus.
And you have nothing for God...
Looks like Zeus is ahead on points.
Nope. God became flesh in the person of Jesus the Christ.
I see.,.,,,, so Christians are sinners who will burn in Hell?
We become Christians in baptism. That doesn't mean we don't sin. And
unrepentant sin is handled the same way for all.
I refer you to the 2nd Commandment...and the regular images of Jesus Christ
used by the religious.
No idea what you're talking about. Statues and images are not worshipped in
Christianity
the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-22 23:42:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:11:23 -0400, "Scout"
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:36:20 -0400, "Scout"
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:52:57 -0400, "Scout"
I didn't say I know how it works.
You claim to know how evolution works ... and that it is *science*.
Inheritable DNA variations occur in organisms. We know many ways
variation
are
created: radiation, some chemicals, retroviruses, human gene
engineering,
etc.
Variations that disadvantage tend to reduce or elimenate the number of
offspring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140319143936.htm
Variations that advantage tend to increase the number of offspring.
We know a lot about how it works.
Once upon a time, I would have played your game of discussing minor
variations while you extrapolate to a world teaming with more species
(plant and animal) than we have counted.
That we know this process occurs, means it will occur again...and
again....and again....it's just a matter of odds and time.
Not anymore.
Couldn't handle the fact that your only rebuttal was calling upon a
mythical
being?
Maybe God and Zeus can get together and have a party?
After all, we have as much proof of one as we do the other.
No, actually you have an inanimate statue for zeus.
And you have nothing for God...
Looks like Zeus is ahead on points.
Nope. God became flesh in the person of Jesus the Christ.
I see.,.,,,, so Christians are sinners who will burn in Hell?
We become Christians in baptism. That doesn't mean we don't sin. And
unrepentant sin is handled the same way for all.
Still see the icons all over the place. Seems it's unrepentant sin.
Post by duke
I refer you to the 2nd Commandment...and the regular images of Jesus Christ
used by the religious.
No idea what you're talking about. Statues and images are not worshipped in
Christianity
So all those images of Jesus Christ are just there for decoration?
duke
2017-08-23 18:17:06 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:42:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:11:23 -0400, "Scout"
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:36:20 -0400, "Scout"
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:52:57 -0400, "Scout"
I didn't say I know how it works.
You claim to know how evolution works ... and that it is *science*.
Inheritable DNA variations occur in organisms. We know many ways
variation
are
created: radiation, some chemicals, retroviruses, human gene
engineering,
etc.
Variations that disadvantage tend to reduce or elimenate the number of
offspring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140319143936.htm
Variations that advantage tend to increase the number of offspring.
We know a lot about how it works.
Once upon a time, I would have played your game of discussing minor
variations while you extrapolate to a world teaming with more species
(plant and animal) than we have counted.
That we know this process occurs, means it will occur again...and
again....and again....it's just a matter of odds and time.
Not anymore.
Couldn't handle the fact that your only rebuttal was calling upon a
mythical
being?
Maybe God and Zeus can get together and have a party?
After all, we have as much proof of one as we do the other.
No, actually you have an inanimate statue for zeus.
And you have nothing for God...
Looks like Zeus is ahead on points.
Nope. God became flesh in the person of Jesus the Christ.
I see.,.,,,, so Christians are sinners who will burn in Hell?
We become Christians in baptism. That doesn't mean we don't sin. And
unrepentant sin is handled the same way for all.
Still see the icons all over the place. Seems it's unrepentant sin.
That's right. Even the pope goes to confession 1-2 times a month. But not for
the sins we individuals must confess.
Post by Scout
Post by duke
I refer you to the 2nd Commandment...and the regular images of Jesus Christ
used by the religious.
No idea what you're talking about. Statues and images are not worshipped in
Christianity
So all those images of Jesus Christ are just there for decoration?
Remembrances, like photos of loved ones.


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-24 00:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:42:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:11:23 -0400, "Scout"
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:36:20 -0400, "Scout"
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:52:57 -0400, "Scout"
I didn't say I know how it works.
You claim to know how evolution works ... and that it is *science*.
Inheritable DNA variations occur in organisms. We know many ways
variation
are
created: radiation, some chemicals, retroviruses, human gene
engineering,
etc.
Variations that disadvantage tend to reduce or elimenate the
number
of
offspring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140319143936.htm
Variations that advantage tend to increase the number of offspring.
We know a lot about how it works.
Once upon a time, I would have played your game of discussing minor
variations while you extrapolate to a world teaming with more species
(plant and animal) than we have counted.
That we know this process occurs, means it will occur again...and
again....and again....it's just a matter of odds and time.
Not anymore.
Couldn't handle the fact that your only rebuttal was calling upon a
mythical
being?
Maybe God and Zeus can get together and have a party?
After all, we have as much proof of one as we do the other.
No, actually you have an inanimate statue for zeus.
And you have nothing for God...
Looks like Zeus is ahead on points.
Nope. God became flesh in the person of Jesus the Christ.
I see.,.,,,, so Christians are sinners who will burn in Hell?
We become Christians in baptism. That doesn't mean we don't sin. And
unrepentant sin is handled the same way for all.
Still see the icons all over the place. Seems it's unrepentant sin.
That's right. Even the pope goes to confession 1-2 times a month. But not for
the sins we individuals must confess.
Post by Scout
Post by duke
I refer you to the 2nd Commandment...and the regular images of Jesus Christ
used by the religious.
No idea what you're talking about. Statues and images are not
worshipped
in
Christianity
So all those images of Jesus Christ are just there for decoration?
Remembrances, like photos of loved ones.
Ah, but that's a sin according to your own source material.
duke
2017-08-24 12:27:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:08:41 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:42:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:11:23 -0400, "Scout"
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:36:20 -0400, "Scout"
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:52:57 -0400, "Scout"
I didn't say I know how it works.
You claim to know how evolution works ... and that it is *science*.
Inheritable DNA variations occur in organisms. We know many ways
variation
are
created: radiation, some chemicals, retroviruses, human gene
engineering,
etc.
Variations that disadvantage tend to reduce or elimenate the
number
of
offspring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140319143936.htm
Variations that advantage tend to increase the number of offspring.
We know a lot about how it works.
Once upon a time, I would have played your game of discussing minor
variations while you extrapolate to a world teaming with more species
(plant and animal) than we have counted.
That we know this process occurs, means it will occur again...and
again....and again....it's just a matter of odds and time.
Not anymore.
Couldn't handle the fact that your only rebuttal was calling upon a
mythical
being?
Maybe God and Zeus can get together and have a party?
After all, we have as much proof of one as we do the other.
No, actually you have an inanimate statue for zeus.
And you have nothing for God...
Looks like Zeus is ahead on points.
Nope. God became flesh in the person of Jesus the Christ.
I see.,.,,,, so Christians are sinners who will burn in Hell?
We become Christians in baptism. That doesn't mean we don't sin. And
unrepentant sin is handled the same way for all.
Still see the icons all over the place. Seems it's unrepentant sin.
That's right. Even the pope goes to confession 1-2 times a month. But not for
the sins we individuals must confess.
Post by Scout
Post by duke
I refer you to the 2nd Commandment...and the regular images of Jesus Christ
used by the religious.
No idea what you're talking about. Statues and images are not
worshipped
in
Christianity
So all those images of Jesus Christ are just there for decoration?
Remembrances, like photos of loved ones.
Ah, but that's a sin according to your own source material.
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Siri Cruise
2017-08-24 14:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests accuse me of
blasphemy?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Just Wondering
2017-08-24 15:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do
the priests accuse me of blasphemy?
No, they accuse you of vandalism.
duke
2017-08-25 12:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do
the priests accuse me of blasphemy?
No, they accuse you of vandalism.
I pushed the "go" button as I was thinking of that.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Melzzzzz
2017-08-24 16:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests accuse me of
blasphemy?
They worship statues alright. Orthodox worships pictures called icons.
--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
Olrik
2017-08-25 04:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests accuse me of
blasphemy?
They worship statues alright. Orthodox worships pictures called icons.
And they genuflect every time they pass before a statue of the jesus
guy. That *is* the definition of idol worshipping.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
duke
2017-08-25 12:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Melzzzzz
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests accuse me of
blasphemy?
They worship statues alright. Orthodox worships pictures called icons.
Nope. No worship


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-24 22:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests accuse me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?

It's an idol. Not of a person, but an idol doesn't have to be of a human. It
can be animals, plants, rocks, even symbols.
duke
2017-08-25 12:35:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:53:48 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests accuse me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?
No.
Post by Scout
It's an idol. Not of a person, but an idol doesn't have to be of a human. It
can be animals, plants, rocks, even symbols.
And it's not an idol.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Siri Cruise
2017-08-25 15:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:53:48 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests accuse me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?
No.
So no more cries of sacrilege if I drop one in a vial of urine?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Ted
2017-08-25 17:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:53:48 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests accuse me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?
No.
So no more cries of sacrilege if I drop one in a vial of urine?
LOL. Hell, *I* wouldn't even do that. :)
duke
2017-08-25 17:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:53:48 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests accuse me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?
No.
So no more cries of sacrilege if I drop one in a vial of urine?
Its a disgusting thing to do, but it's not a sacrilege.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-26 19:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:53:48 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests
accuse
me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?
No.
So no more cries of sacrilege if I drop one in a vial of urine?
Its a disgusting thing to do, but it's not a sacrilege.
So now you're inventing your own meanings...
duke
2017-08-27 13:51:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 15:46:15 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:53:48 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests
accuse
me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?
No.
So no more cries of sacrilege if I drop one in a vial of urine?
Its a disgusting thing to do, but it's not a sacrilege.
So now you're inventing your own meanings...
You're already a pagan. Dropping a cross in a vial of urine is already your
speed.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-08-25 12:50:32 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:53:48 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests accuse me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?
No, no Catholic prays to the cross. That's just two pieces of wood.
Scout
2017-08-26 19:47:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:53:48 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests
accuse
me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?
No, no Catholic prays to the cross. That's just two pieces of wood.
My own observations indicate otherwise.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-08-26 20:03:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 15:47:30 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:53:48 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests
accuse
me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?
No, no Catholic prays to the cross. That's just two pieces of wood.
My own observations indicate otherwise.
It's an inanimate object, so no Catholic prays to it.


One explanation.

The problem is the evolution of language.

We don't actually adore the cross. The term in the liturgy comes from
the prayer that St. Francis wrote, which was later incorporated into
the Good Friday liturgy and the stations of the cross as well, but it
was originally written for the Blessed Sacrament.

"We adore you Oh Christ and we bless you, here and in all of your
churches throughout the whole world, because by your holy cross you
have redeemed the world."

When the term is carried over into the Liturgy of Good Friday the word
remains, but the meaning changes. We don't adore sacred objects, such
as a crucifix. That would be idolatry. We are actually venerating the
cross and adoring Christ in his passion. The wording is meant to refer
to Christ, not the crucifix.

Observe that when the liturgy uses the prayer, especially during the
stations of the cross, it shortens it to

"We adore you Oh Christ and we bless you; because by your Holy Cross
you have redeemed the world." The object of adoration is Christ. The
reason for the adoration is that he had redeemed the world. The how of
the redemption is the Holy Cross.

This is probably one of the best examples of Latin being transferred
from one situation to another where it gets confusing. The expression,
"Adoration of the Holy Cross" comes from the old prayer that was said
in the past. The prayer is rarely used today, except by Franciscans
who still say it on Good Friday. But the expression has remained.

Aquinas did not get confused. He knew that we do not adore the cross.
He was using the language of his time, as was St. Francis when he
wrote the prayer. This creates another series of misunderstandings.
The Latin "adoramus" was used to mean to things, "to adore" God or "I
adore you", which one would say to a person whom one loves.

I can say, "I adore that dress." A Christian can say, "I adore the
cross." It's an expression of love. Depending on the context, the love
can be more or less intense. Obvioiusly, you don't love that little
black dress as you love your spouse and children. But you use the same
word for both.

I will caution readers who are very attached to Aquinas. Aquinas is a
wonderful source for understanding our faith. But there are several
things that must be kept in mind.

Aquinas was never a pope, not even a bishop. Not everything that he
wrote or thought became official teaching of the Church. Much of what
he wrote was already part of the deposit of faith and he organized it
and explained it very well. Other things that he wrote were his own
reflections and he was on the money in some instances and way off the
mark on others, such as the Immaculate Conception, masturbation, the
role of clerics. In all of these, he started out with a fundamental
truth that was right and then he built on that, but he went off the
mark. So . . . the Church did not adopt his position. For the most
part, his positions are very consistent with the faith of the Church
and his explanations are helpful in teaching, because of his clarity
and organization.

Another thing about Aquinas is that we don't always interpret him
correctly. He has to be interpreted in light of Christian Tradition,
Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium. Aquinas was not writing for the
man in the pews; therefore, he made no effort to keep it simple. His
audience were theologians, bishops, philosophers and popes. Much of
his writing was intended to correct many of the heresies of his day.
Sometimes, it is good to understand the heresy in order to understand
the response that Aquinas offers. It's like a puzzle. When you have
both pieces, then you go, "Aha! That makes sense."

For example, his position on the Immaculate Conception made sense in
light of the heresy that claimed that Mary did not need redemption,
because she did not have original sin. Aquinas goes out of his way to
show that she too is a beneficiary of redemption. Unfortunately, his
idea was right, but his explanation was wrong.

There are some very good books that are written as companions to the
Summa, which one should have if one is going to use the Summa. If not
the companions, then the Dominican Friars are always a good source to
explain it. They, more than any other religiuos order, spend a great
deal of time studying the Summa during their formation years.

Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on the Summa. Franciscans study the
Summa too, but very briefly. We go through a year of it. We spend
about seven years on Bonaventure, Scotus, Lawrence of Brindisi and
many of our own doctors who wrote on the same topics as Aquinas, but
using St. Francis as the springboard. Whereas Aquinas uses the Greek
Philosophers as his springboard.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF
__________________
Fraternally,

Brother JR, FFV
Scout
2017-08-26 20:09:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 15:47:30 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:53:48 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests
accuse
me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?
No, no Catholic prays to the cross. That's just two pieces of wood.
My own observations indicate otherwise.
It's an inanimate object, so no Catholic prays to it.
Observation would indicate otherwise.

Unless you're telling me those Catholics I see aren't really Catholics?
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-08-26 20:15:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 16:09:10 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 15:47:30 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:53:48 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests
accuse
me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?
No, no Catholic prays to the cross. That's just two pieces of wood.
My own observations indicate otherwise.
It's an inanimate object, so no Catholic prays to it.
Observation would indicate otherwise.
Unless you're telling me those Catholics I see aren't really Catholics?
Maybe we're using a different definition of "praying to." That would
explain it.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-26 21:05:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Scout
Unless you're telling me those Catholics I see aren't really Catholics?
Maybe we're using a different definition of "praying to." That would
explain it.
It's simple to test. Spray paint a cross, crucifix, statue, or whatever. If it's
called sacrilege or desecration, it's an idol.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-08-26 21:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Scout
Unless you're telling me those Catholics I see aren't really Catholics?
Maybe we're using a different definition of "praying to." That would
explain it.
It's simple to test. Spray paint a cross, crucifix, statue, or whatever. If it's
called sacrilege or desecration, it's an idol.
Well, no.

If you were to go to a church and crap on the altar, you would have
desecrated it.

The altar is not worshipped.

Words have meanings. Learn them.



"Only losers - that is, illiterates - resort to dictionaries. "
-Rudy Canoza
Siri Cruise
2017-08-26 21:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Scout
Unless you're telling me those Catholics I see aren't really Catholics?
Maybe we're using a different definition of "praying to." That would
explain it.
It's simple to test. Spray paint a cross, crucifix, statue, or whatever. If it's
called sacrilege or desecration, it's an idol.
Well, no.
If you were to go to a church and crap on the altar, you would have
desecrated it.
The altar is not worshipped.
Words have meanings. Learn them.
Words are symbols. Symbols are not what they represent. Sacredness is not
transferred from the symbolised to the symbol. When you treat the symbol as
sacred, it is an idol.

Are people temples of your god? Are people sacred? Do you treat any attack on
any human as an act of desecration?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-08-26 21:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Scout
Unless you're telling me those Catholics I see aren't really Catholics?
Maybe we're using a different definition of "praying to." That would
explain it.
It's simple to test. Spray paint a cross, crucifix, statue, or whatever. If it's
called sacrilege or desecration, it's an idol.
Well, no.
If you were to go to a church and crap on the altar, you would have
desecrated it.
The altar is not worshipped.
Words have meanings. Learn them.
Words are symbols.
They have meanings.
Post by Siri Cruise
Symbols are not what they represent. Sacredness is not
transferred from the symbolised to the symbol. When you treat the symbol as
sacred, it is an idol.
Then you clearly have no idea what "idol" means.
Post by Siri Cruise
Are people temples of your god?
Nope.
Post by Siri Cruise
Are people sacred?
Nope.
Post by Siri Cruise
Do you treat any attack on
any human as an act of desecration?
Nope.

Anything else you need help understanding, besides the meaning of the
word "idol?"
Siri Cruise
2017-08-26 22:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Symbols are not what they represent. Sacredness is not
transferred from the symbolised to the symbol. When you treat the symbol as
sacred, it is an idol.
Then you clearly have no idea what "idol" means.
Clearly you are just making excuses.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Are people temples of your god?
Nope.
So Paul was wrong?

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and
that God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God
will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that
temple.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-08-27 00:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Symbols are not what they represent. Sacredness is not
transferred from the symbolised to the symbol. When you treat the symbol as
sacred, it is an idol.
Then you clearly have no idea what "idol" means.
Clearly you are just making excuses.
Clearly you have given up.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Are people temples of your god?
Nope.
So Paul was wrong?
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and
that God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God
will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that
temple.
He was speaking in metaphors.

I know you're not pretending to be dumb, because you really *are* this
stupid.
Scout
2017-08-27 01:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Symbols are not what they represent. Sacredness is not
transferred from the symbolised to the symbol. When you treat the symbol as
sacred, it is an idol.
Then you clearly have no idea what "idol" means.
Clearly you are just making excuses.
Clearly you have given up.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Are people temples of your god?
Nope.
So Paul was wrong?
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and
that God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God
will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that
temple.
He was speaking in metaphors.
ROFL....it's to be read literally.....unless they don't want to hear it then
it's read as metaphors...

So tell me is Creationism merely a metaphor for a natural process?
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-08-27 09:20:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 21:10:53 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Symbols are not what they represent. Sacredness is not
transferred from the symbolised to the symbol. When you treat the symbol as
sacred, it is an idol.
Then you clearly have no idea what "idol" means.
Clearly you are just making excuses.
Clearly you have given up.
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Are people temples of your god?
Nope.
So Paul was wrong?
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and
that God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God
will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that
temple.
He was speaking in metaphors.
ROFL....it's to be read literally.....unless they don't want to hear it then
it's read as metaphors...
Wrong.
Post by Scout
So tell me is Creationism merely a metaphor for a natural process?
Do you know what a metaphor is? Because you don't seem to know what
"praying to" means.

OR is this your way of trying to change the subject?
Siri Cruise
2017-08-27 01:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Are people temples of your god?
Nope.
So Paul was wrong?
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and
that God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God
will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that
temple.
He was speaking in metaphors.
I heard a Texan died in the hurricane. I need your advice: should I be
metaphoricly sad or literally sad for him? Or should I be happy?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-08-27 09:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Are people temples of your god?
Nope.
So Paul was wrong?
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and
that God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God
will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that
temple.
He was speaking in metaphors.
I heard a Texan died in the hurricane.
I'm glad you're keeping up with the news.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-27 13:28:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Are people temples of your god?
Nope.
So Paul was wrong?
1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and
that God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God
will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together
are
that
temple.
He was speaking in metaphors.
I heard a Texan died in the hurricane.
I'm glad you're keeping up with the news.
I see. You are totally indifferent to the death of others. Congratulations to
your preacher.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-26 21:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:53:48 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests
accuse
me of
blasphemy?
For that matter do they pray or otherwise pay homage to the cross itself?
No, no Catholic prays to the cross. That's just two pieces of wood.
My own observations indicate otherwise.
Christians worship a dead Jew on a stick. George Carlin
duke
2017-08-25 12:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
There's an easy test. If I spray paint on a statue, do the priests accuse me of
blasphemy?
No.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-24 22:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:08:41 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:42:21 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:11:23 -0400, "Scout"
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:36:20 -0400, "Scout"
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:52:57 -0400, "Scout"
I didn't say I know how it works.
You claim to know how evolution works ... and that it is *science*.
Inheritable DNA variations occur in organisms. We know many ways
variation
are
created: radiation, some chemicals, retroviruses, human gene
engineering,
etc.
Variations that disadvantage tend to reduce or elimenate the
number
of
offspring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140319143936.htm
Variations that advantage tend to increase the number of offspring.
We know a lot about how it works.
Once upon a time, I would have played your game of discussing minor
variations while you extrapolate to a world teaming with more species
(plant and animal) than we have counted.
That we know this process occurs, means it will occur again...and
again....and again....it's just a matter of odds and time.
Not anymore.
Couldn't handle the fact that your only rebuttal was calling upon a
mythical
being?
Maybe God and Zeus can get together and have a party?
After all, we have as much proof of one as we do the other.
No, actually you have an inanimate statue for zeus.
And you have nothing for God...
Looks like Zeus is ahead on points.
Nope. God became flesh in the person of Jesus the Christ.
I see.,.,,,, so Christians are sinners who will burn in Hell?
We become Christians in baptism. That doesn't mean we don't sin. And
unrepentant sin is handled the same way for all.
Still see the icons all over the place. Seems it's unrepentant sin.
That's right. Even the pope goes to confession 1-2 times a month. But not for
the sins we individuals must confess.
Post by Scout
Post by duke
I refer you to the 2nd Commandment...and the regular images of Jesus Christ
used by the religious.
No idea what you're talking about. Statues and images are not
worshipped
in
Christianity
So all those images of Jesus Christ are just there for decoration?
Remembrances, like photos of loved ones.
Ah, but that's a sin according to your own source material.
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
Actually you do...

And since you're a Roman Catholic, let me print it out for you.

Exodus 20:4-6 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of
anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You
shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a
jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third
and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand
generations of those who love me and keep my Commandments.

Now, what does a catholic do when they approach the cross, which often has a
depiction of Jesus on it?

Enough said.
duke
2017-08-25 12:39:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:51:04 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
Actually you do...
And since you're a Roman Catholic, let me print it out for you.
Idol = worship. No worship, no idol.
Post by Scout
Exodus 20:4-6 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of
anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You
shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a
jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third
and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand
generations of those who love me and keep my Commandments.
Now, what does a catholic do when they approach the cross, which often has a
depiction of Jesus on it?
Nothing.
Post by Scout
Enough said.
Yep.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-08-25 12:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:51:04 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
Actually you do...
And since you're a Roman Catholic, let me print it out for you.
Idol = worship. No worship, no idol.
Never heard of Catholics worshiping statues. How odd. Where are they
getting this stuff?
duke
2017-08-25 17:44:56 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 05:47:17 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:51:04 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
Actually you do...
And since you're a Roman Catholic, let me print it out for you.
Idol = worship. No worship, no idol.
Never heard of Catholics worshiping statues. How odd. Where are they
getting this stuff?
They're pulling them out of their ass.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-26 19:46:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:51:04 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
Actually you do...
And since you're a Roman Catholic, let me print it out for you.
Idol = worship. No worship, no idol.
Never heard of Catholics worshiping statues. How odd. Where are they
getting this stuff?
Doesn't have to be limited to a statute.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-08-26 20:03:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 15:46:56 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:51:04 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
Actually you do...
And since you're a Roman Catholic, let me print it out for you.
Idol = worship. No worship, no idol.
Never heard of Catholics worshiping statues. How odd. Where are they
getting this stuff?
Doesn't have to be limited to a statute.
Catholics only worship God. Nothing else.
Scout
2017-08-26 20:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 15:46:56 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:51:04 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
Actually you do...
And since you're a Roman Catholic, let me print it out for you.
Idol = worship. No worship, no idol.
Never heard of Catholics worshiping statues. How odd. Where are they
getting this stuff?
Doesn't have to be limited to a statute.
Catholics only worship God. Nothing else.
Sounds nice...in theory.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-08-26 20:16:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 16:08:17 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 15:46:56 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:51:04 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
Actually you do...
And since you're a Roman Catholic, let me print it out for you.
Idol = worship. No worship, no idol.
Never heard of Catholics worshiping statues. How odd. Where are they
getting this stuff?
Doesn't have to be limited to a statute.
Catholics only worship God. Nothing else.
Sounds nice...in theory.
Well, that's catholic teaching in fact. So if you can find one of
these people who are praying to something other than God, perhaps you
could ask them. After all, I would suppose it would be difficult to
tell who or what a person is praying to by just observing them.
duke
2017-08-27 13:55:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 16:08:17 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 15:46:56 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:51:04 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
Actually you do...
And since you're a Roman Catholic, let me print it out for you.
Idol = worship. No worship, no idol.
Never heard of Catholics worshiping statues. How odd. Where are they
getting this stuff?
Doesn't have to be limited to a statute.
Catholics only worship God. Nothing else.
Sounds nice...in theory.
A pagan atheist thinks she knows better.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****

duke
2017-08-27 13:54:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 15:46:56 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:51:04 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
Actually you do...
And since you're a Roman Catholic, let me print it out for you.
Idol = worship. No worship, no idol.
Never heard of Catholics worshiping statues. How odd. Where are they
getting this stuff?
Doesn't have to be limited to a statute.
What he's saying is that said statue is not sacred.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Klaus Schadenfreude
2017-08-26 21:45:28 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:51:04 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Of course not. No Christian much less a Roman Catholic worships a statue.
Actually you do...
Actually, no, they don't.
Post by Scout
And since you're a Roman Catholic, let me print it out for you.
Exodus 20:4-6 You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of
anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You
shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a
jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third
and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand
generations of those who love me and keep my Commandments.
Now, what does a catholic do when they approach the cross, which often has a
depiction of Jesus on it?
They don't worship it.

And as an aside, the Mosaic Law was fulfilled when Jesus dropped in to
visit.

That's why Catholics can eat shrimp and bacon. :)

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-we-are-not-bound-by-everything-in-the-old-law
duke
2017-08-22 17:26:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:14:12 -0400, "Scout"
Also the incomprehensible complexity of life and the
sub-infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred by chance,
is evidence that it did not arise by chance, and therefore is
evidence that it resulted from something other than chance.
There is no sound argument that it could or could not
happen by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
You may say that, but it does not alter the point that
the incomprehensible complexity of life and the sub-
infinitesimal possibility that it might have occurred
by chance, is evidence that life resulted from something
other than chance.
1. There is no sound argument that it could happen
by chance within the lifetime of the earth.
apart from the fact it occurred
There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life necessarily began by chance.
"There's your problem. You take the fact that life exists
as proof that life was necessarily began by divine intervention."
No, I take the fact of the intricate complexity of life and the
statistical near-impossibility that that complexity occurred by chance as
evidence of a creator.
So better to believe in something you have no proof of, rather than to
believe in a improbable possibility?
"Proof" is not applicable. We have evidence galore, which is now fully
supportable of faith.
Hmm.... I bet you're more likely to survive falling from a cliff than having
an angel swoop down and grab you in midair during your fall.
Angels swooping in. That sounds like a child's game.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
duke
2017-08-22 17:30:07 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:53:37 -0400, "Scout"
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living thing
tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Believe what you will....but the facts are there.
And yet you not only can't produce these facts, you can't even provide any
evidence they could even exist.
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Siri Cruise
2017-08-22 19:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
If works alone can't earn heaven, how can works alone earn hell? Why do you
believe mercy is limitted to what you can imagine.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
duke
2017-08-23 18:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
If works alone can't earn heaven, how can works alone earn hell? Why do you
believe mercy is limitted to what you can imagine.
I just go by the word of God.

James 2:26New International Version (NIV)
26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-24 00:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
If works alone can't earn heaven, how can works alone earn hell? Why do you
believe mercy is limitted to what you can imagine.
I just go by the word of God.
Great, you found an old dusty book and you assert it's proof of anything and
everything.

Hey, I've got a book that says humans are brought by storks.

If it's in a book that must mean it's true, right?
duke
2017-08-24 12:31:10 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:07:22 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
If works alone can't earn heaven, how can works alone earn hell? Why do you
believe mercy is limitted to what you can imagine.
I just go by the word of God.
Great, you found an old dusty book and you assert it's proof of anything and
everything.
Nope. My RCC has been active for 2000 years in human endeavor. It's the
protest_ers that decided 400 years ago to disregard the teaching of Jesus and
elect to follow a book they didn't understand.
Post by Scout
Hey, I've got a book that says humans are brought by storks.
If it's in a book that must mean it's true, right?
The bible is just a book. There is nothing to believe, but there is everything
to understand.

Mark 4:33-34New International Version (NIV)
33 With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they
could understand. 34 He did not say anything to them without using a parable.
But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

Prots think everything in the book is literal truth. But, of course, not when
it comes to the teachings of Jesus Christ. They don't have a problem at all at
turning the other cheek there.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-24 22:55:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:07:22 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
If works alone can't earn heaven, how can works alone earn hell? Why do you
believe mercy is limitted to what you can imagine.
I just go by the word of God.
Great, you found an old dusty book and you assert it's proof of anything and
everything.
Nope. My RCC has been active for 2000 years in human endeavor.
So? Does age automatically make something more valid?
Post by duke
It's the
protest_ers that decided 400 years ago to disregard the teaching of Jesus and
elect to follow a book they didn't understand.
So, now you're asserting that your assertions, are based on the assertions
in a book which is based on the assertion of a person.

Wow, I can certainly see the scientific method there.
duke
2017-08-25 12:53:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:55:38 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:07:22 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
If works alone can't earn heaven, how can works alone earn hell? Why do you
believe mercy is limitted to what you can imagine.
I just go by the word of God.
Great, you found an old dusty book and you assert it's proof of anything and
everything.
Nope. My RCC has been active for 2000 years in human endeavor.
So? Does age automatically make something more valid?
An odd question. Does truth disappear when the last eye witness dies?
Post by Scout
Post by duke
It's the
protest_ers that decided 400 years ago to disregard the teaching of Jesus and
elect to follow a book they didn't understand.
So, now you're asserting that your assertions, are based on the assertions
in a book which is based on the assertion of a person.
No, not in the case of the RCC which is an unbroken line of researchers and
biblical experts and teachers of 2000 years regarding what Jesus said and did,
"some" of which was put into writing called the new Testament. John 21:25

1600 years later, certain people protested the Roman Catholic church, became
known as the reformers/protest_ants who elected to decide for themselves if what
they were reading was meaningful or not.

Thus the protest_ants are only 400 years old. As long as they are baptized in
the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, they are Christians. But their
protest against much of what Jesus taught leaves them very vulnerable to dying
in serious sin because they reject the Sacrament of Confession. John 20:22-23.

Only God knows.
Post by Scout
Wow, I can certainly see the scientific method there.
the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Rudy Canoza
2017-08-25 15:28:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:55:38 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:07:22 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
If works alone can't earn heaven, how can works alone earn hell? Why do you
believe mercy is limitted to what you can imagine.
I just go by the word of God.
Great, you found an old dusty book and you assert it's proof of anything and
everything.
Nope. My RCC has been active for 2000 years in human endeavor.
So? Does age automatically make something more valid?
An odd question. Does truth disappear when the last eye witness dies?
Post by Scout
Post by duke
It's the
protest_ers that decided 400 years ago to disregard the teaching of Jesus and
elect to follow a book they didn't understand.
So, now you're asserting that your assertions, are based on the assertions
in a book which is based on the assertion of a person.
No, not in the case of the RCC which is an unbroken line of
Hucksters. Yes.
Post by duke
the doucher, smug fat prick and congenital liar
*****
Purpose of Life: To rape little Catholic children repeatedly
and never get caught, thanks to the corrupt church hierarchy.
*****
Ted
2017-08-25 17:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:55:38 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:07:22 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
If works alone can't earn heaven, how can works alone earn hell? Why do you
believe mercy is limitted to what you can imagine.
I just go by the word of God.
Great, you found an old dusty book and you assert it's proof of anything and
everything.
Nope. My RCC has been active for 2000 years in human endeavor.
So? Does age automatically make something more valid?
An odd question. Does truth disappear when the last eye witness dies?
Post by duke
Post by Scout
It's the
protest_ers that decided 400 years ago to disregard the teaching of Jesus and
elect to follow a book they didn't understand.
So, now you're asserting that your assertions, are based on the assertions
in a book which is based on the assertion of a person.
No, not in the case of the RCC which is an unbroken line of
Hucksters. Yes.
Ever watched Carlin's religion bit? He says you have to "stand in awe" at
the success of what's the biggest con game in history.
duke
2017-08-26 15:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:55:38 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:07:22 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
If works alone can't earn heaven, how can works alone earn hell? Why do you
believe mercy is limitted to what you can imagine.
I just go by the word of God.
Great, you found an old dusty book and you assert it's proof of anything and
everything.
Nope. My RCC has been active for 2000 years in human endeavor.
So? Does age automatically make something more valid?
An odd question. Does truth disappear when the last eye witness dies?
Post by duke
Post by Scout
It's the
protest_ers that decided 400 years ago to disregard the teaching of Jesus and
elect to follow a book they didn't understand.
So, now you're asserting that your assertions, are based on the assertions
in a book which is based on the assertion of a person.
No, not in the case of the RCC which is an unbroken line of
Hucksters. Yes.
Ever watched Carlin's religion bit? He says you have to "stand in awe" at
the success of what's the biggest con game in history.
Yep, your game.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-26 20:18:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:55:38 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:07:22 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:27:45 -0700, Siri Cruise
Post by Siri Cruise
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
If works alone can't earn heaven, how can works alone earn hell?
Why do
you
believe mercy is limitted to what you can imagine.
I just go by the word of God.
Great, you found an old dusty book and you assert it's proof of
anything
and
everything.
Nope. My RCC has been active for 2000 years in human endeavor.
So? Does age automatically make something more valid?
An odd question. Does truth disappear when the last eye witness dies?
Post by duke
Post by Scout
It's the
protest_ers that decided 400 years ago to disregard the teaching of
Jesus
and
elect to follow a book they didn't understand.
So, now you're asserting that your assertions, are based on the assertions
in a book which is based on the assertion of a person.
No, not in the case of the RCC which is an unbroken line of
Hucksters. Yes.
Ever watched Carlin's religion bit? He says you have to "stand in awe" at
the success of what's the biggest con game in history.
Yep, your game.
the dukester, American-American
*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
And how can you know that which refused to prove proof of existence?

Are you telling me that God is so arbitrary and fickle that he would punish
for an eternity those who, using the gifts they have, refuse to spend their
lives trying to know, love and serve something which won't give them reason
or evidence to do so?
duke
2017-08-26 15:27:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by duke
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Nope. My RCC has been active for 2000 years in human endeavor.
So? Does age automatically make something more valid?
An odd question. Does truth disappear when the last eye witness dies?
Post by Scout
Post by duke
It's the
protest_ers that decided 400 years ago to disregard the teaching of Jesus and
elect to follow a book they didn't understand.
So, now you're asserting that your assertions, are based on the assertions
in a book which is based on the assertion of a person.
No, not in the case of the RCC which is an unbroken line of researchers and
biblical experts and teachers of 2000 years regarding what Jesus said and did,
"some" of which was put into writing called the new Testament. John 21:25
1600 years later, certain people protested the Roman Catholic church, became
known as the reformers/protest_ants who elected to decide for themselves if what
they were reading was meaningful or not.
Thus the protest_ants are only 400 years old. As long as they are baptized in
the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, they are Christians. But their
protest against much of what Jesus taught leaves them very vulnerable to dying
in serious sin because they reject the Sacrament of Confession. John 20:22-23.
Hucksters. Yes.
Yep, those protest_ants are really that.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-26 20:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:55:38 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:07:22 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Siri Cruise
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
If works alone can't earn heaven, how can works alone earn hell? Why
do
you
believe mercy is limitted to what you can imagine.
I just go by the word of God.
Great, you found an old dusty book and you assert it's proof of anything and
everything.
Nope. My RCC has been active for 2000 years in human endeavor.
So? Does age automatically make something more valid?
An odd question. Does truth disappear when the last eye witness dies?
No, but eye witnesses make for poor evidence particularly when it comes to
science which requires independent testing and verification.

I know people under the effects of drugs that have told me about all sorts
of weird stuff they've seen.....but what was in their visions doesn't make
it scientific evidence.
Post by duke
Post by Scout
Post by duke
It's the
protest_ers that decided 400 years ago to disregard the teaching of
Jesus
and
elect to follow a book they didn't understand.
So, now you're asserting that your assertions, are based on the assertions
in a book which is based on the assertion of a person.
No, not in the case of the RCC which is an unbroken line of researchers and
biblical experts and teachers of 2000 years regarding what Jesus said and did,
"some" of which was put into writing called the new Testament. John 21:25
Interesting, and exactly what did Jesus say, EXACTLY, and can you explain
how what written down then is often vastly different than what appears in
the Bible today?

Exactly which version is the "truth", and do any of it amount to more than
hear-say evidence?
Post by duke
1600 years later, certain people protested the Roman Catholic church, became
known as the reformers/protest_ants who elected to decide for themselves if what
they were reading was meaningful or not.
Thus the protest_ants are only 400 years old. As long as they are baptized in
the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, they are Christians. But their
protest against much of what Jesus taught leaves them very vulnerable to dying
in serious sin because they reject the Sacrament of Confession. John 20:22-23.
That is assuming that those writings actually mean anything which you can't
seem to show they do.
Alan LeHun
2017-08-24 08:31:33 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
I just go by the word of God.
Which god? Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah to
Buddha and the Greek, Roman and Viking Pantheons to the Flying Spaghetti
Monster, there is nothing with which to separate them to gain any sort
of guidance or leverage as to which one is the 'true' god(s).
And they are all mutually exclusive, so anyone who for whatever reason
has decided that there is a god, is probably not going to follow the
correct one and has therefor doomed themselves to whatever sort of
purgatory there may happen to be for those that follow 'false gods'.

It is also worth noting that those who follow the Christian path are not
following the word of god, but instead are following the word of a
mortal human being who others have claimed was the son of god, and who's
teachings directly contradicted those of his father.

May the Great Ones noodly appendages find your every orifice. :p
--
Alan LeHun
duke
2017-08-24 12:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan LeHun
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
I just go by the word of God.
Which god?
There's only one.
Post by Alan LeHun
Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah
Oh, you don't know that Jehovah is the Hebrew word for God and Allah the muslim
word for god?

to
Post by Alan LeHun
Buddha and the Greek, Roman and Viking Pantheons to the Flying Spaghetti
Monster, there is nothing with which to separate them to gain any sort
of guidance or leverage as to which one is the 'true' god(s).
And they are all mutually exclusive, so anyone who for whatever reason
has decided that there is a god, is probably not going to follow the
correct one and has therefor doomed themselves to whatever sort of
purgatory there may happen to be for those that follow 'false gods'.
It is also worth noting that those who follow the Christian path are not
following the word of god, but instead are following the word of a
mortal human being who others have claimed was the son of god, and who's
teachings directly contradicted those of his father.
May the Great Ones noodly appendages find your every orifice. :p
the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Siri Cruise
2017-08-24 14:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah
Oh, you don't know that Jehovah is the Hebrew word for God and Allah the muslim
word for god?
Allah is 'the lah' and arab 'lah' is cognate to heb 'el'. They're both
Afroasiatic languages with cognate lexicon, morphology, and syntax.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
s***@gmail.com
2017-08-24 22:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah
Oh, you don't know that Jehovah is the Hebrew word for God and Allah the muslim
word for god?
Allah is 'the lah' and arab 'lah' is cognate to heb 'el'. They're both
Afroasiatic languages with cognate lexicon, morphology, and syntax.
Um, you're telling that to a guy who claimed that

" In Greek/Latin, Adama means mankind."

Not exactly Noam Chomsky there.
Post by Siri Cruise
--
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
duke
2017-08-25 12:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah
Oh, you don't know that Jehovah is the Hebrew word for God and Allah the muslim
word for god?
Allah is 'the lah' and arab 'lah' is cognate to heb 'el'. They're both
Afroasiatic languages with cognate lexicon, morphology, and syntax.
Um, you're telling that to a guy who claimed that
" In Greek/Latin, Adama means mankind."
Still true. Adam is a reference to mankind, Eve to mother of mankind.

Jesus is Lord, Mary is his mother.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
s***@gmail.com
2017-08-25 18:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah
Oh, you don't know that Jehovah is the Hebrew word for God and Allah the muslim
word for god?
.
.
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Siri Cruise
Allah is 'the lah' and arab 'lah' is cognate to heb 'el'. They're both
Afroasiatic languages with cognate lexicon, morphology, and syntax.
Um, you're telling that to a guy who claimed that
" In Greek/Latin, Adama means mankind."
Still true.
Hilariously untrue.

Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Latin and Greek are
actually ... how shall I put this? ... TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES,
I told a friend about your claim. This friend is a classics professor.
Which means he reads (and can speak) both Latin and Greek from
the period. And this friend -- who, did I mention, has a PhD in this
area? -- says that the word "Adama" does not exist in either tongue.

What IS true is that "Adama" is a Hebrew word meaning soil,
ground, earth.

Which entirely consistent with the Genesis myth.
God created Adam out of "the dust of the ground".

Hebrew. Not GreekLatin. Or LatinGreek.

Dust, not mankind.

Yes, Adam the mythological figure can indeed stand for all mankind.

But your linguistic claim is bogus.

Selene
Post by duke
Adam is a reference to mankind, Eve to mother of mankind.
Jesus is Lord, Mary is his mother.
the dukester, American-American
*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
duke
2017-08-26 15:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah
Oh, you don't know that Jehovah is the Hebrew word for God and Allah the muslim
word for god?
.
.
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Siri Cruise
Allah is 'the lah' and arab 'lah' is cognate to heb 'el'. They're both
Afroasiatic languages with cognate lexicon, morphology, and syntax.
Um, you're telling that to a guy who claimed that
" In Greek/Latin, Adama means mankind."
Still true.
Hilariously untrue.
Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Latin and Greek are
actually ... how shall I put this? ... TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES,
I told a friend about your claim.
Which is what to this discussion. If your were more an a dumb darling, you'd
know that's not the point. Language of Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew all
figure into the bible structure.

This friend is a classics professor.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Which means he reads (and can speak) both Latin and Greek from
the period. And this friend -- who, did I mention, has a PhD in this
area? -- says that the word "Adama" does not exist in either tongue.
What IS true is that "Adama" is a Hebrew word meaning soil,
ground, earth.
Yep, that's what I was saying. And even more specifically re "red dirt".
Post by s***@gmail.com
Which entirely consistent with the Genesis myth.
God created Adam out of "the dust of the ground".
Red dust.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Hebrew. Not GreekLatin. Or LatinGreek.
Dust, not mankind.
And what we're both doing at this point is establishing that Adam (mankind) and
Eve (mother of mankind) falls well short of establishing that adam and eve were
real human beings rather than a general reference to mankind and mother of
mankind.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Yes, Adam the mythological figure can indeed stand for all mankind.
Yes, as you can now see, that's exactly what I was dong.
Post by s***@gmail.com
But your linguistic claim is bogus.
Selene
Post by duke
Adam is a reference to mankind, Eve to mother of mankind.
Jesus is Lord, Mary is his mother.
So now you opened your big mouth and confirmed that you had no understanding of
the discussion. Your ignorance of religious faith dumped on you.

Congratulations.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-26 15:52:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah
Oh, you don't know that Jehovah is the Hebrew word for God and Allah the
muslim
word for god?
.
.
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Siri Cruise
Allah is 'the lah' and arab 'lah' is cognate to heb 'el'. They're both
Afroasiatic languages with cognate lexicon, morphology, and syntax.
Um, you're telling that to a guy who claimed that
" In Greek/Latin, Adama means mankind."
Still true.
Hilariously untrue.
Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Latin and Greek are
actually ... how shall I put this? ... TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES,
I told a friend about your claim.
Which is what to this discussion. If your were more an a dumb darling, you'd
know that's not the point. Language of Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew all
figure into the bible structure.
LOL. You are *such* a liar, duke. The conversation is quoted above,
moron.
Post by duke
This friend is a classics professor.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Which means he reads (and can speak) both Latin and Greek from
the period. And this friend -- who, did I mention, has a PhD in this
area? -- says that the word "Adama" does not exist in either tongue.
What IS true is that "Adama" is a Hebrew word meaning soil,
ground, earth.
Yep, that's what I was saying. And even more specifically re "red dirt".
No, duke, you *didn't* say that. You said " In Greek/Latin, Adama
means mankind." It was only today, after Sabine refuted you, that you
googled and learned it was Hebrew.
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Which entirely consistent with the Genesis myth.
God created Adam out of "the dust of the ground".
Red dust.
Which you only just learned today.
Siri Cruise
2017-08-26 21:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by duke
Which is what to this discussion. If your were more an a dumb darling, you'd
know that's not the point. Language of Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew all
figure into the bible structure.
LOL. You are *such* a liar, duke. The conversation is quoted above,
moron.
There's latin in the bible?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
s***@gmail.com
2017-08-26 17:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah
Oh, you don't know that Jehovah is the Hebrew word for God and Allah the
muslim
word for god?
.
.
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Siri Cruise
Allah is 'the lah' and arab 'lah' is cognate to heb 'el'. They're both
Afroasiatic languages with cognate lexicon, morphology, and syntax.
Um, you're telling that to a guy who claimed that
" In Greek/Latin, Adama means mankind."
Still true.
Hilariously untrue.
Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Latin and Greek are
actually ... how shall I put this? ... TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES,
I told a friend about your claim.
Which is what to this discussion. If your were more an a dumb darling, you'd
know that's not the point. Language of Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew all
figure into the bible structure.
This friend is a classics professor.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Which means he reads (and can speak) both Latin and Greek from
the period. And this friend -- who, did I mention, has a PhD in this
area? -- says that the word "Adama" does not exist in either tongue.
What IS true is that "Adama" is a Hebrew word meaning soil,
ground, earth.
Yep, that's what I was saying. And even more specifically re "red dirt".
Post by s***@gmail.com
Which entirely consistent with the Genesis myth.
God created Adam out of "the dust of the ground".
Red dust.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Hebrew. Not GreekLatin. Or LatinGreek.
Dust, not mankind.
And what we're both doing at this point is establishing that Adam (mankind) and
Eve (mother of mankind) falls well short of establishing that adam and eve were
real human beings rather than a general reference to mankind and mother of
mankind.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Yes, Adam the mythological figure can indeed stand for all mankind.
Yes, as you can now see, that's exactly what I was dong.
Post by s***@gmail.com
But your linguistic claim is bogus.
Selene
Post by duke
Adam is a reference to mankind, Eve to mother of mankind.
Jesus is Lord, Mary is his mother.
So now you opened your big mouth and confirmed that you had no understanding of
the discussion. Your ignorance of religious faith dumped on you.
Congratulations.
the dukester, American-American
Heh. Did anyone ever tell you you're just so damn *cute*
when you're caught out being blatantly wrong, and then
try to bluster and bombast your way out of it by denying you said
what everyone sees that you said?

You were wrong. Worse, you were ignorantly wrong.
Even worse yet, you are utterly, totally, bone-deep unable
to admit ever being wrong.

So, anything else?

Oh, yeah, there is one more thing, isn't there?

About your "falls well short of establishing that adam and eve were
real human beings rather than a general reference to mankind and mother of
mankind", you're wrong on that too. Your own Pius XII clearly said
so, in an encyclical. 1950, it was.

Specifically he said that "the faithful cannot embrace that opinion".

Would you like a link to that?

If not, and if there's nothing else I can help you out with,
then I think we're done here.

Toodles.


Selene
Ted
2017-08-26 18:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah
Oh, you don't know that Jehovah is the Hebrew word for God and Allah the muslim
word for god?
.
.
Post by duke
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Siri Cruise
Allah is 'the lah' and arab 'lah' is cognate to heb 'el'. They're both
Afroasiatic languages with cognate lexicon, morphology, and syntax.
Um, you're telling that to a guy who claimed that
" In Greek/Latin, Adama means mankind."
Still true.
Hilariously untrue.
Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that Latin and Greek are
actually ... how shall I put this? ... TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES,
I told a friend about your claim.
Which is what to this discussion. If your were more an a dumb darling, you'd
know that's not the point. Language of Latin, Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew all
figure into the bible structure.
This friend is a classics professor.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Which means he reads (and can speak) both Latin and Greek from
the period. And this friend -- who, did I mention, has a PhD in this
area? -- says that the word "Adama" does not exist in either tongue.
What IS true is that "Adama" is a Hebrew word meaning soil,
ground, earth.
Yep, that's what I was saying. And even more specifically re "red dirt".
Post by s***@gmail.com
Which entirely consistent with the Genesis myth.
God created Adam out of "the dust of the ground".
Red dust.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Hebrew. Not GreekLatin. Or LatinGreek.
Dust, not mankind.
And what we're both doing at this point is establishing that Adam (mankind) and
Eve (mother of mankind) falls well short of establishing that adam and eve were
real human beings rather than a general reference to mankind and mother of
mankind.
Post by s***@gmail.com
Yes, Adam the mythological figure can indeed stand for all mankind.
Yes, as you can now see, that's exactly what I was dong.
Post by s***@gmail.com
But your linguistic claim is bogus.
Selene
Post by duke
Adam is a reference to mankind, Eve to mother of mankind.
Jesus is Lord, Mary is his mother.
So now you opened your big mouth and confirmed that you had no understanding of
the discussion. Your ignorance of religious faith dumped on you.
Congratulations.
the dukester, American-American
Heh. Did anyone ever tell you you're just so damn *cute*
when you're caught out being blatantly wrong, and then
try to bluster and bombast your way out of it by denying you said
what everyone sees that you said?
You were wrong. Worse, you were ignorantly wrong.
Even worse yet, you are utterly, totally, bone-deep unable
to admit ever being wrong.
So, anything else?
Oh, yeah, there is one more thing, isn't there?
About your "falls well short of establishing that adam and eve were
real human beings rather than a general reference to mankind and mother of
mankind", you're wrong on that too. Your own Pius XII clearly said
so, in an encyclical. 1950, it was.
Specifically he said that "the faithful cannot embrace that opinion".
Would you like a link to that?
If not, and if there's nothing else I can help you out with,
then I think we're done here.
Toodles.
Selene
Nice job, Selene. You handed duke his fat lying ass. :)
duke
2017-08-25 12:56:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah
Oh, you don't know that Jehovah is the Hebrew word for God and Allah the muslim
word for god?
Allah is 'the lah' and arab 'lah' is cognate to heb 'el'. They're both
Afroasiatic languages with cognate lexicon, morphology, and syntax.
Three faiths call Abraham father of their faith - the same and only God.
Christian - God almighty.
Jewish - Jehovah
Muslim - Allah.


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Alan LeHun
2017-08-24 21:13:11 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, duckgumbo32
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
I just go by the word of God.
Which god?
There's only one.
Well that rules out most of the ancient gods.
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah
Oh, you don't know that Jehovah is the Hebrew word for God and Allah the muslim
word for god?
Yep. Hence the slash. Far be it from me to promote one version of the
one true god over another.
--
Alan LeHun
Siri Cruise
2017-08-24 21:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan LeHun
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
I just go by the word of God.
Which god?
There's only one.
Well that rules out most of the ancient gods.
Or not. Some polytheisms have a single uncreated creator god, and all others are
lesser created gods. A monotheism like Judaism allows various lesser creations
such as angels. And while lesser creations might appear to be gods to humans, it
can be compatiable with monotheism as long as they are subservient to the single
creator god: http://www.thedivinecouncil.com is one such interpretation.

Mosaic law starts 'you will have no other gods before me' rather than 'you will
have no other gods.' That allows for lesser creations as long you recognise who
is the big boss.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
duke
2017-08-26 15:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan LeHun
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
I just go by the word of God.
Which god?
There's only one.
Well that rules out most of the ancient gods.
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
Because there are quite a few, and from Jehova/Allah
Oh, you don't know that Jehovah is the Hebrew word for God and Allah the muslim
word for god?
Yep. Hence the slash. Far be it from me to promote one version of the
one true god over another.
You can't anyway. There is only one almighty God.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-24 23:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
I just go by the word of God.
Which god?
There's only one.
Your own commandments state other gods exist.

"I am the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no strange gods before Me."

If there are no other Gods, then you couldn't place one before the Lord, and
thus the 1st Commandment would be moot and serve no purpose.

QED.
duke
2017-08-25 13:01:49 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:00:12 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
I just go by the word of God.
Which god?
There's only one.
Your own commandments state other gods exist.
IE, one (GOD) almighty, many (gods). Food, booze, wealth, sex, gambling can be
one's (god) if one is consumed by the god.
Post by Scout
"I am the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no strange gods before Me."
That's right, there are no others.
Post by Scout
If there are no other Gods, then you couldn't place one before the Lord, and
thus the 1st Commandment would be moot and serve no purpose.
QED.
Yep. QED.
the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-26 19:48:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:00:12 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
I just go by the word of God.
Which god?
There's only one.
Your own commandments state other gods exist.
IE, one (GOD) almighty, many (gods). Food, booze, wealth, sex, gambling can be
one's (god) if one is consumed by the god.
Post by Scout
"I am the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no strange gods before Me."
That's right, there are no others.
If there were no others, then it would hardly be necessary to make it a
commandment, would it?
Blue Ringed 8
2017-08-26 21:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:00:12 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
I just go by the word of God.
Which god?
There's only one.
Your own commandments state other gods exist.
IE, one (GOD) almighty, many (gods). Food, booze, wealth, sex, gambling can be
one's (god) if one is consumed by the god.
.
.
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Scout
"I am the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no strange gods before Me."
That's right, there are no others.
If there were no others, then it would hardly be necessary to make it a
commandment, would it?
Oh, it's right there in his own Bible (which he gives little indication of
having read):

"God stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods."


BR-8
Scout
2017-08-26 20:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:00:12 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
Post by Alan LeHun
@cox.net says...
Post by duke
I just go by the word of God.
Which god?
There's only one.
Your own commandments state other gods exist.
IE, one (GOD) almighty, many (gods).
Really, how do you know that God is almighty?

Sounds more like PR to me.

If he were truly almighty then why doesn't he sit own with each individual
and prove to them that he exists and can do all the things it is claimed he
can do?

I mean....if he's almighty, then there is nothing stopping him. If he's
worried about free will then he can allow Lucifer equal time.
Scout
2017-08-22 23:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:53:37 -0400, "Scout"
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living thing
tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Believe what you will....but the facts are there.
And yet you not only can't produce these facts, you can't even provide any
evidence they could even exist.
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
You seem to have forgotten to include it.
duke
2017-08-23 18:14:13 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:55 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:53:37 -0400, "Scout"
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living thing
tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Believe what you will....but the facts are there.
And yet you not only can't produce these facts, you can't even provide any
evidence they could even exist.
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
You seem to have forgotten to include it.
2 Corinthians 5:10New International Version (NIV)
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us
may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good
or bad.

1 John 3:2-3New International Version (NIV)
2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been
made known. But we know that when Christ appears,[a] we shall be like him, for
we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify themselves,
just as he is pure.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-24 00:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:55 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:53:37 -0400, "Scout"
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living thing
tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Believe what you will....but the facts are there.
And yet you not only can't produce these facts, you can't even provide any
evidence they could even exist.
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
You seem to have forgotten to include it.
2 Corinthians 5:10New International Version (NIV)
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each
of us
may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good
or bad.
1 John 3:2-3New International Version (NIV)
2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not
yet been
made known. But we know that when Christ appears,[a] we shall be like him, for
we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify
themselves,
just as he is pure.
So now you're claiming your assertions are based on other assertions and
that somehow means your evidence isn't just more assertions?
duke
2017-08-24 12:33:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:08:05 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:55 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:53:37 -0400, "Scout"
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living thing
tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Believe what you will....but the facts are there.
And yet you not only can't produce these facts, you can't even provide any
evidence they could even exist.
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
You seem to have forgotten to include it.
2 Corinthians 5:10New International Version (NIV)
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each
of us
may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good
or bad.
1 John 3:2-3New International Version (NIV)
2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not
yet been
made known. But we know that when Christ appears,[a] we shall be like him, for
we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify
themselves,
just as he is pure.
So now you're claiming your assertions are based on other assertions and
that somehow means your evidence isn't just more assertions?
Whatever you're smoking.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Scout
2017-08-24 23:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:08:05 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:55 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:53:37 -0400, "Scout"
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living thing
tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Believe what you will....but the facts are there.
And yet you not only can't produce these facts, you can't even provide any
evidence they could even exist.
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
You seem to have forgotten to include it.
2 Corinthians 5:10New International Version (NIV)
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each
of us
may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body,
whether
good
or bad.
1 John 3:2-3New International Version (NIV)
2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not
yet been
made known. But we know that when Christ appears,[a] we shall be like
him,
for
we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify
themselves,
just as he is pure.
So now you're claiming your assertions are based on other assertions and
that somehow means your evidence isn't just more assertions?
Whatever you're smoking.
I note your inability to refute or contest the basic logic structure
presented.
duke
2017-08-25 13:04:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:08:05 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:55 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:53:37 -0400, "Scout"
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living thing
tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Believe what you will....but the facts are there.
And yet you not only can't produce these facts, you can't even provide any
evidence they could even exist.
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
You seem to have forgotten to include it.
2 Corinthians 5:10New International Version (NIV)
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each
of us
may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body,
whether
good
or bad.
1 John 3:2-3New International Version (NIV)
2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not
yet been
made known. But we know that when Christ appears,[a] we shall be like
him,
for
we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify
themselves,
just as he is pure.
So now you're claiming your assertions are based on other assertions and
that somehow means your evidence isn't just more assertions?
Whatever you're smoking.
I note your inability to refute or contest the basic logic structure
presented.
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe. We don't say
we guarantee. But the evidence for the existence of God is overwhelming.

So we started in faith, and now have a plethora of evidence (not proof) of God's
existence.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Mitchell Holman
2017-08-25 13:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
Ted
2017-08-25 13:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
According to duke, that's why Catholics don't read the Bible.
Mitchell Holman
2017-08-25 17:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
According to duke, that's why Catholics don't read the Bible.
For most of his church's history Catholics
weren't ALLOWED to read the Bible.
Ted
2017-08-25 17:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by Ted
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
According to duke, that's why Catholics don't read the Bible.
For most of his church's history Catholics
weren't ALLOWED to read the Bible.
True. They didn't permit it until the Protestant Reformation, after which
they had to in order to remain competitive.
duke
2017-08-25 17:46:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
According to duke, that's why Catholics don't read the Bible.
No, I told you we live according to the bible. Jesus NEVER told us to sit
around and read.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-25 17:54:56 UTC
Permalink
I'm a stupid lying shitbag.
True.
Mitchell Holman
2017-08-25 22:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
According to duke, that's why Catholics don't read the Bible.
No, I told you we live according to the bible. Jesus NEVER told us to
sit around and read.
He never told you to go to confession and
say rosaries and obey any popes either.
Ted
2017-08-25 22:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
According to duke, that's why Catholics don't read the Bible.
No, I told you we live according to the bible. Jesus NEVER told us to
sit around and read.
He never told you to go to confession and
say rosaries and obey any popes either.
Good call.
duke
2017-08-26 15:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
According to duke, that's why Catholics don't read the Bible.
No, I told you we live according to the bible. Jesus NEVER told us to
sit around and read.
He never told you to go to confession and
say rosaries and obey any popes either.
Of course he did. They were all his idea. You people are getting dumber by the
hour.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Mitchell Holman
2017-08-26 17:04:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:22:12 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
Post by Ted
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We
believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
According to duke, that's why Catholics don't read the Bible.
No, I told you we live according to the bible. Jesus NEVER told us
to sit around and read.
He never told you to go to confession and
say rosaries and obey any popes either.
Of course he did. They were all his idea.
Bible doesn't even MENTION rosaries,
or the pope for that matter. Much less a
confessional.

Have ever even READ the Bible?
duke
2017-08-25 17:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
Can you dispute it?

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Mitchell Holman
2017-08-25 22:20:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:16:05 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
Can you dispute it?
There is no dispute that the Vatican tells you
what to believe and you do as ordered.
Blue Ringed 8
2017-08-26 03:46:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:16:05 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
Can you dispute it?
There is no dispute that the Vatican tells you
what to believe and you do as ordered.
Duke? Hit and miss when it comes to the current Pope.

As regards Francis' quite liberal statements on things
like immigrants and the succoring the poor, Duke here is practically
a sedevacantist.

BR-8
Ted
2017-08-26 05:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:16:05 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
Can you dispute it?
There is no dispute that the Vatican tells you
what to believe and you do as ordered.
Duke? Hit and miss when it comes to the current Pope.
As regards Francis' quite liberal statements on things
like immigrants and the succoring the poor, Duke here is practically
a sedevacantist.
BR-8
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson.
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-26 12:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:16:05 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
Can you dispute it?
There is no dispute that the Vatican tells you
what to believe and you do as ordered.
Duke? Hit and miss when it comes to the current Pope.
As regards Francis' quite liberal statements on things
like immigrants and the succoring the poor, Duke here is practically
a sedevacantist.
Isn't Mel Gibson's father one of them?
Post by Ted
Post by Blue Ringed 8
BR-8
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Ted
2017-08-26 14:38:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 07:01:50 -0500, "Jeanne Douglas"
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:16:05 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
Can you dispute it?
There is no dispute that the Vatican tells you
what to believe and you do as ordered.
Duke? Hit and miss when it comes to the current Pope.
As regards Francis' quite liberal statements on things
like immigrants and the succoring the poor, Duke here is practically
a sedevacantist.
Isn't Mel Gibson's father one of them?
I didn't know that. But then again, I didn't even know the word before
yesterday. :)
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
Post by Blue Ringed 8
BR-8
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson.
Blue Ringed 8
2017-08-26 17:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:16:05 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
Can you dispute it?
There is no dispute that the Vatican tells you
what to believe and you do as ordered.
Duke? Hit and miss when it comes to the current Pope.
As regards Francis' quite liberal statements on things
like immigrants and the succoring the poor, Duke here is practically
a sedevacantist.
Isn't Mel Gibson's father one of them?
Yes, he is.

And what's really funny? I came across that phenomenon
in chasing down a loony video that Andrew had put up.
It led me to these folks, whose video it was.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Most_Holy_Family_Monastery

BR-8
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Ted
Post by Blue Ringed 8
BR-8
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
Jeanne Douglas
2017-08-27 04:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Blue Ringed 8
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:16:05 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
Can you dispute it?
There is no dispute that the Vatican tells you
what to believe and you do as ordered.
Duke? Hit and miss when it comes to the current Pope.
As regards Francis' quite liberal statements on things
like immigrants and the succoring the poor, Duke here is practically
a sedevacantist.
Isn't Mel Gibson's father one of them?
Yes, he is.
And what's really funny? I came across that phenomenon
in chasing down a loony video that Andrew had put up.
It led me to these folks, whose video it was.
http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Most_Holy_Family_Monastery
Oh, good grief!

<http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Most_Holy_Family_Monastery#Beliefs>

Aborted babies go to Hell because they are unbaptized (according to them Satan knows this, which is why he loves abortion).

Having homosexual thoughts is a mortal sin (even if not acted on), and homosexuality is the result of "demonic takeover" (and only "faithless liberals who don't want the truth" disagree).

Contraception is a mortal sin - in fact even having sex with your wife while on her monthly cycle is a mortal sin since she's unable to get pregnant.

The Jews are collectively responsible for the death of Jesus... and the Holocaust was of course a hoax.

Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, evolutionists, mainstream Catholics (aka "modernist heretics"), and basically anyone who doesn't share MHFM's views are destined for hell. Ironically, this goes against traditional Catholic teachings and borders on Calvinism, itself a form of Protestantism.

Superman is "Satan's replacement" for Jesus Christ.

Rock musicians such as Elvis, The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, Madonna, Iron Maiden, etc are possessed by demons and listening to their music allows demons to put you in a "zombie-like trance". According to them rock musicians leave clues making it easy to spot their demonic nature (for example if you turn a copy Prince's 1999album upside down, you get 666).

The group is also apparently sympathetic to geocentrism - while they don't endorse it outright, they mention that many of their followers debate whether or not one is required to believe in a geocentric model (some citing Psalm 103:5 in support). The Monastery maintains that one doesn't have to believe in geocentrism to be a "true Christian".



And now we know how Mel Gibson became the prick that he is.

I mean, serioiusly, Superman????????

And the fact that they are Holocaust deniers makes them purely evil.
--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post
duke
2017-08-26 15:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:16:05 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
Can you dispute it?
There is no dispute that the Vatican tells you
what to believe and you do as ordered.
That's because everything they tell me is found in scripture.

the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Ted
2017-08-26 16:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:16:05 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
Can you dispute it?
There is no dispute that the Vatican tells you
what to believe and you do as ordered.
That's because everything they tell me is found in scripture.
Liar.
Mitchell Holman
2017-08-26 17:06:08 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:20:30 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:16:05 -0500, Mitchell Holman
Post by Mitchell Holman
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
You believe what the Vatican tells you to believe.
Can you dispute it?
There is no dispute that the Vatican tells you
what to believe and you do as ordered.
That's because everything they tell me is found in scripture.
So you take the word of your pedophile priest
that the Bible says what HE says it is.

I think I see the root of your problem.......
Scout
2017-08-26 19:48:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 19:01:41 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 20:08:05 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:43:55 -0400, "Scout"
Post by Scout
Post by duke
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 19:53:37 -0400, "Scout"
We have evidence of evolution, it's not enough to be
proof, but it's more than you're bringing to the table.
What is your evidence for the origin of DNA?
What is yours?
The fact that Creation is the -only- possible model for the
origination of DNA.
And what evidence do you have of that?
The fact that it contains code for the synthesis of every living thing
tells you that it had an intelligent causation.
Not really.
Believe what you will....but the facts are there.
And yet you not only can't produce these facts, you can't even
provide
any
evidence they could even exist.
Willful ignorance will not cut it on the final Day
when you are to be called to give an account.
Do you have evidence this accounting will occur?
Yep.
You seem to have forgotten to include it.
2 Corinthians 5:10New International Version (NIV)
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each
of us
may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body,
whether
good
or bad.
1 John 3:2-3New International Version (NIV)
2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not
yet been
made known. But we know that when Christ appears,[a] we shall be like
him,
for
we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify
themselves,
just as he is pure.
So now you're claiming your assertions are based on other assertions and
that somehow means your evidence isn't just more assertions?
Whatever you're smoking.
I note your inability to refute or contest the basic logic structure
presented.
It's not my job to fully explain Christianity to you. We believe.
And that's what it boils down to.......belief.....nothing else.
duke
2017-08-22 17:31:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 10:10:22 -0700 (PDT), Atlatl Axolotl
And you wonder why I call your God an evil God?
I did.


the dukester, American-American


*****
Purpose of Life: To Know, love and serve God and to love your
neighbor as yourself and thus be happy with God in heaven.
*****
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-27 02:33:44 UTC
Permalink
If evolution is faith based why is it that it is supported by every legitimate scientific organization and almost every university on earth?

How is it possible that such a hoax could have been perpetrated for over 150 years without being debunked by legitimate scientific scholars?
Cloud Hobbit
2017-08-27 02:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Anyone claiming missing links have not been found is a liar.

Just Google transitional fossils.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...