|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 31, 2016 3:10:30 GMT -5
So have evolutionists changed their format ? They use to pretend we didn't need DNA and that natural selection was the agent of change . Ha what a joke that theory is! It makes me glad that we have an encoded Intelligent agent for change , thus saving me from dealing with false theories!  ? |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2016 3:47:55 GMT -5
Jan 31, 2016 1:57:30 GMT -6 Guest4 said:
Now it is also deceiving to say that all creationists
have even heard about ID science, right?
I do not think that ID scientists that subscribe to ID
are deceptively using the term without changing
the premise of creation event.
IMO ID describes how we were designed and clot just
the appearance of said design and there was an interactive
agent coding information of the formation of said life
I don't understand your question: "Now it is also deceiving to say that all creationists have even heard about ID science, right?"
Can you explain what you meant in terms of how your question related to what Pait said?
Pait said:
"Sometimes their tactics adapt — dare I say evolve? —" to new situations (like when they changed their name from creationism to Intelligent Design),
when it comes to astronomy.
Psarris has a series of videos out about creationist astronomy.
In them, he uses the term evolution to stir emotions in creationists, and not for what it actually means.
He then tried to squirm out of that, saying astronomers use the term evolution all the time
I then showed where he was being very deceptive there, trying to distract his readers away from the point..."
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2016 4:00:01 GMT -5
So have evolutionists changed their format ? They use to pretend we didn't need DNA
and that natural selection was the agent of
change . Ha what a joke that theory is! It makes me glad that we have an encoded Intelligent agent for change , thus saving me from dealing with false theories! ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 5:09:45 GMT -5
I forget which period but in the fossil record there is a BIG lack of transitional fossils...
You think about that while go finish the video that I am watching.because they are not there. we've had hundreds and thousands of digs and few are showing up before or after the Cambrian period... |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 31, 2016 10:09:50 GMT -5
Now it is also deceiving to say that all creationists have even heard about ID science, right? I do not think that ID scientists that subscribe to ID are deceptively using the term without changing the premise of creation event. IMO ID describes how we were designed and clot just the appearance of said design and there was an interactive agent coding information of the formation of said life Oh come on. Even the courts rules that ID "science" (and yes, the quotes are very much required) is nothing more than repackaged creation "science". |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 31, 2016 10:56:01 GMT -5
It may help in understanding how biological complexity and diversity came to be by evolution from something much simpler if we look at the “evolution” of the binary system of 1 & 0.
Now if you asked Samuel Morse in 1836 if his binary system would “evolve” to where people around the world could communicate like we do here on TBM he might say;
--. --- -.. / -- .- -.. . / -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - . .-. ...
From the simple 1 & 0 we get; talking pictures, video, computers, I Phones, etc.
If you showed someone in 1836 what 1 & 0 have “evolved” into, would they too not say god must have created all this?
|
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Jan 31, 2016 11:14:36 GMT -5
Yes God would know if someone is just following to "hedge their bet on an afterlife" as you put it, that's why it's so important that we follow what Jesus told us, that we must deny ourselves. Once we start to deny ourselves, then we are giving our hearts to God. To show him we truly love him we must live for him and obey him do his will not our own, and follow Jesus. You do realize that this would mean, for me at least, that I would have to lie or perhaps have a lobotomy to do as you suggest. It would be equivalent of me asking you to give up all and follow the commands and desires of Ra, the Egyptian sun god. So you believe Jesus is/was god and has been showing men how to live since the creation? Imagine how many Egyptians thought this about the god they served.But not an original thought. Shouldn't the credit go to the person who first expressed the idea of the ethic of reciprocity. The Egyptians were teaching and following this about 2,000 years before Jesus recorded the thought.Again, this is not an original idea.Again, not an original idea. And Jesus did tell his followers that if they went somewhere and people did not listen to them or welcome them they should shake the dust from their feet and walk away. Not really an example of unquestioning help. However these are your beliefs. We just look at the claims you make from different points of view. [/quote] Yes, we are at opposite ends of the spectrum aren't we! But still, God loves all of us regardless. The reason I believe that God is the only true God is because to me, God is love. So, a God of love would also want his people to also be full of love. He would want us to deny the sins of the flesh and let his spirit grow within. Jesus came to show us how to live, how to lay down our lives for others, and live for God, he came as a perfect example, so that we have no excuse. Adam was trusted and sinned, Jesus had to come to do what Adam couldn't do. To show us how to deny sins of the world, by doing this we are accepting him and Gods spirit. When we do this, we will then be put to death in the flesh by the spirit of God. We then live it out also. We are saved through Christ's life, by the spirit within and living it out. Pharoah came as a God, I don't believe that any human being should be worshipped or reverenced. IMO There can be no other way to truly show God that we love him, than to live for him and by his will, showing his love to others. Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone followed Jesus and lived how he taught us to live. The world would be full of love, and everyone would care for eachother, imagine if everyone truly loved their neighbour! God wants us to, accept Christ Jesus and turn from sin, so he can do his works within. Once he is doing the works within, we will be doing the works outwardly. Jesus could have come as a king, with wealth and worldly praise, but kings live it up in palaces and are far away from the ordinary people, Jesus wanted to be among them, feeling the suffering they felt. Would you listen to anyone who was telling you how to live, and then live the opposite themselves? I wouldn't. So Jesus came as an ordinary man, and suffered. He denied the world when he was offered it, Satan offered him everything, but this world is nothing compared to having the love of God and Jesus knew this. Wealth, power, praise meant nothing to him. The people tried to make him a king and he ran away. When he was called good, he turned around and asked why did they a say that, when there was none good but God. He wanted all praise to go to God, he came as a servant and the things of the world meant nothing to him. He just wanted to be close to his father. And to know God, we must do the same. We will never truly know God until we start dying to self. Because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, we have to become a temple not made with man's hands, but by the spirit of God. I would believe Jesus more than any man sitting in a palace living it up and expecting the people to suffer (like pharoah) I believe Jesus because he didn't just speak it, he lived it! |
|
|
|
Post by Giest4 on Jan 31, 2016 12:38:46 GMT -5
It may help in understanding how biological complexity and diversity came to be by evolution from something much simpler if we look at the “evolution” of the binary system of 1 & 0. Now if you asked Samuel Morse in 1836 if his binary system would “evolve” to where people around the world could communicate like we do here on TBM he might say; --. --- -.. / -- .- -.. . / -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - . .-. ... From the simple 1 & 0 we get; talking pictures, video, computers, I Phones, etc. If you showed someone in 1836 what 1 & 0 have “evolved” into, would they too not say god must have created all this? Intelligence comes from the intelligence giver, human flesh comes from the earth and returns to the earth but our intelligence returns to the giver of intelligence (whom we can have and intellectual and real relationship with ) |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 31, 2016 13:02:14 GMT -5
Jan 31, 2016 1:57:30 GMT -6 Guest4 said:
Now it is also deceiving to say that all creationists
have even heard about ID science, right?
I do not think that ID scientists that subscribe to ID
are deceptively using the term without changing
the premise of creation event.
IMO ID describes how we were designed and clot just
the appearance of said design and there was an interactive
agent coding information of the formation of said life
I don't understand your question: "Now it is also deceiving to say that all creationists have even heard about ID science, right?"
Can you explain what you meant in terms of how your question related to what Pait said?
Pait said:
"Sometimes their tactics adapt — dare I say evolve? —" to new situations (like when they changed their name from creationism to Intelligent Design),
when it comes to astronomy.
Psarris has a series of videos out about creationist astronomy.
In them, he uses the term evolution to stir emotions in creationists, and not for what it actually means.
He then tried to squirm out of that, saying astronomers use the term evolution all the time
I then showed where he was being very deceptive there, trying to distract his readers away from the point..."
Changing their name is deceptive? Hey did Darwin say you could change his theory to another name ? I've heard it called evolution neoevolution Darwinism Neo Darwinism is this like being deceptive also?? Some of the modifications necessitate a new name Most evolutionists believe they came from the Big Bang so I don't think it's deceptive to call the Big Bang, evolutionist theory By the way where do you think we came from ? |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 31, 2016 13:06:55 GMT -5
It may help in understanding how biological complexity and diversity came to be by evolution from something much simpler if we look at the “evolution” of the binary system of 1 & 0. Now if you asked Samuel Morse in 1836 if his binary system would “evolve” to where people around the world could communicate like we do here on TBM he might say; --. --- -.. / -- .- -.. . / -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - . .-. ... From the simple 1 & 0 we get; talking pictures, video, computers, I Phones, etc. If you showed someone in 1836 what 1 & 0 have “evolved” into, would they too not say god must have created all this? Intelligence comes from the intelligence giver, human flesh comes from the earth and returns to the earth but our intelligence returns to the giver of intelligence (whom we can have and intellectual and real relationship with ) Does she give a refund? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 31, 2016 13:21:27 GMT -5
Now it is also deceiving to say that all creationists have even heard about ID science, right? I do not think that ID scientists that subscribe to ID are deceptively using the term without changing the premise of creation event. IMO ID describes how we were designed and clot just the appearance of said design and there was an interactive agent coding information of the formation of said life Oh come on. Even the courts rules that ID "science" (and yes, the quotes are very much required) is nothing more than repackaged creation "science". Inasmuch as the green tea party is a repackaging of the Republicans I don't think it's deceptive they just have different agendas in my opinion |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 31, 2016 13:53:10 GMT -5
Intelligence comes from the intelligence giver, human flesh comes from the earth and returns to the earth but our intelligence returns to the giver of intelligence (whom we can have and intellectual and real relationship with ) Does she give a refund? Hmmmmmmm, but seriously what would you do with the refund you wouldn't have a body human body but I think the question would be posed what did you do with the intelligence you were given from whome much is given much is required, right? |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 31, 2016 13:59:43 GMT -5
Hmmmmmmm, but seriously what would you do with the refund you wouldn't have a body human body but I think the question would be posed what did you do with the intelligence you were given from whome much is given much is required, right? What to do, If only a few be saved? Is there no warranty from Defects In Materials and Workmanship? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 31, 2016 14:32:40 GMT -5
Hmmmmmmm, but seriously what would you do with the refund you wouldn't have a body human body but I think the question would be posed what did you do with the intelligence you were given from whome much is given much is required, right? What to do, If only a few be saved? Is there no warranty from Defects In Materials and Workmanship? Hmmmmmmmmm, .........warranty? Ya , it all depends on if ya were keeping a copy of the users manual and the required maintenance? |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 31, 2016 15:40:34 GMT -5
What to do, If only a few be saved? Is there no warranty from Defects In Materials and Workmanship? Hmmmmmmmmm, .........warranty? Ya , it all depends on if ya were keeping a copy of the users manual and the required maintenance? Will I need the original packaging? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 31, 2016 16:06:27 GMT -5
Hmmmmmmmmm, .........warranty? Ya , it all depends on if ya were keeping a copy of the users manual and the required maintenance? Will I need the original packaging? Yes yes of course don't leave without your soul , it might be still in the box? |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 31, 2016 16:13:07 GMT -5
Will I need the original packaging? Yes yes of course don't leave without your soul , it might be still in the box? I've seen better models. Can I do the free one time reincarnation upgrade? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 31, 2016 16:55:43 GMT -5
Yes yes of course don't leave without your soul , it might be still in the box? I've seen better models. Can I do the free one time reincarnation upgrade? Just make sure that you sow what you want to reap? I've heard tell of 100 fold upgrade ! ? |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 31, 2016 17:04:11 GMT -5
I've seen better models. Can I do the free one time reincarnation upgrade? Just make sure that you sow what you want to reap? I've heard tell of 100 fold upgrade ! ? I have heard of double coupons, but now you are just being silly.  |
|
|
|
Post by Notmee on Jan 31, 2016 18:37:26 GMT -5
Just make sure that you sow what you want to reap? I've heard tell of 100 fold upgrade ! ? I have heard of double coupons, but now you are just being silly. Not me? That is a real promise that cannot be ignored! ? |
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2016 19:27:50 GMT -5
Jan 31, 2016 1:57:30 GMT -6 Guest4 said:
Now it is also deceiving to say that all creationists
have even heard about ID science, right?
I do not think that ID scientists that subscribe to ID
are deceptively using the term without changing
the premise of creation event.
IMO ID describes how we were designed and clot just
the appearance of said design and there was an interactive
agent coding information of the formation of said life
I don't understand your question: "Now it is also deceiving to say that all creationists have even heard about ID science, right?"
Can you explain what you meant in terms of how your question related to what Pait said?
Pait said:
"Sometimes their tactics adapt — dare I say evolve? —" to new situations (like when they changed their name from creationism to Intelligent Design),
when it comes to astronomy.
Psarris has a series of videos out about creationist astronomy.
In them, he uses the term evolution to stir emotions in creationists, and not for what it actually means.
He then tried to squirm out of that, saying astronomers use the term evolution all the time
I then showed where he was being very deceptive there, trying to distract his readers away from the point..."
Changing their name is deceptive? Hey did Darwin say you could change his theory to another name ? I've heard it called evolution neoevolution Darwinism Neo Darwinism is this like being deceptive also?? Some of the modifications necessitate a new name Most evolutionists believe they came from the Big Bang so I don't think it's deceptive to call the Big Bang, evolutionist theory By the way where do you think we came from ?
Sorry to get back to you so late.
Pait did not mean that it was the changing of their name that was deceptive.
It was about using the term of "evolution" while showing videos on "astronomy."
When we use the term "evolution," we aren't usually referring to "astronomy", but rather biological evolution of life.
This is how the term "evolution" is defined:
"Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules." (wiki)
What Pait was referring to was that when it comes to astronomy, Psarris uses the term "evolution" for no other reason than to appeal to creationists, rather than using the term in it's real meaning.
I can think of one other reason that Psarris might do that; that Psarris simply did not know what he was talking about! 
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 31, 2016 19:41:11 GMT -5
Yes but Spike was an atheist so he had a different perspective of evolutionists
don't you believe that the Big Bang is integrated
into the theology of evolutionists?
Is there any other options ? Just wondering
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2016 19:49:02 GMT -5
I forget which period but in the fossil record there is a BIG lack of transitional fossils...
You think about that while go finish the video that I am watching.
Sorry, wally, -that I didn't get back to you last night about why there being fewer "transitional fossils."
The reason they are less apt to be found is because they appear at a time when there are rapid geologically events occur and there is a need to change in order to survive.
Otherwise during a time of a more stability they don't change as much.
That is why we find so many more fossils that are nearly the same as opposed to "transitional fossils."
However, there are quite a few transitional fossils that have been found.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest4 on Jan 31, 2016 19:56:31 GMT -5
Yes but Spike was an atheist so he had a different perspective of evolutionists
don't you believe that the Big Bang is integrated
into the theology of evolutionists?
Is there any other options ? Just wondering
Btw, who is Mr Pait ?
|
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 31, 2016 20:39:52 GMT -5
Yes, but Spike was an atheist so he had a different perspective of evolutionists don't you believe that the Big Bang is integrated into the theology of evolutionists? Is there any other options ? Just wondering Btw, who is Mr Pait ?
Now it is you who are the one giving words a different meaning than the correct one:
Definition of theology:
: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience : the study of God and God's relation to the world
: a system of religious beliefs or ideasThe "Big Bang"' and evolutionary concepts have to do with Science, NOT "theology."
ehum.. Could that kind of misusing words be considered as "deception?"
(Sorry, I mis-spelled Plait's name.)
Plait was the author of the article that I cited from Discover magazine.
"Philip Cary Plait also known as The Bad Astronomer, is an American astronomer, skeptic, writer and popular science blogger.
Plait has worked as part of the Hubble Space Telescope team, images and spectra of astronomical objects, as well as engaging in public outreach advocacy for NASA missions.
He has written two books, Bad Astronomy and Death from the Skies.
He has also appeared in several science documentaries, including Phil Plait's Bad Universe on the Discovery Channel. From August 2008 through 2009, he served as President of the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Additionally, he wrote and hosted episodes of Crash Course Astronomy, which has recently aired its last episode." (wiki)
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 31, 2016 20:53:26 GMT -5
It may help in understanding how biological complexity and diversity came to be by evolution from something much simpler if we look at the “evolution” of the binary system of 1 & 0. Now if you asked Samuel Morse in 1836 if his binary system would “evolve” to where people around the world could communicate like we do here on TBM he might say; --. --- -.. / -- .- -.. . / -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - . .-. ... From the simple 1 & 0 we get; talking pictures, video, computers, I Phones, etc. If you showed someone in 1836 what 1 & 0 have “evolved” into, would they too not say god must have created all this? Except for the fact that he was dead, Gottfried Leibniz would have understood that it was not god! |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 31, 2016 21:17:43 GMT -5
It may help in understanding how biological complexity and diversity came to be by evolution from something much simpler if we look at the “evolution” of the binary system of 1 & 0. Now if you asked Samuel Morse in 1836 if his binary system would “evolve” to where people around the world could communicate like we do here on TBM he might say; --. --- -.. / -- .- -.. . / -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - . .-. ... From the simple 1 & 0 we get; talking pictures, video, computers, I Phones, etc. If you showed someone in 1836 what 1 & 0 have “evolved” into, would they too not say god must have created all this? Except for the fact that he was dead, Gottfried Leibniz would have understood that it was not god! Wasn't he a Lutheran deist? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 31, 2016 22:02:55 GMT -5
Except for the fact that he was dead, Gottfried Leibniz would have understood that it was not god! Wasn't he a Lutheran deist? I have no idea. But he was a polymath. |
|
?
