1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    18 Aug '15 22:35
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I don't care how long the work takes it is still be done by people who all share the same
    issues. Water will not rise above its source and we cannot shake our nature and short
    comings. You can believe what you will, and voice you opinion strongly, doing it for 10
    years doesn't make you any more right or wrong than someone who has been doing it
    for 10 minutes.
    I don't care much about those other people, I just care that I am right. That is what matters to me. That is why I am a young earth creationists and a Christian, because I believe I am right and sonhouse is wrong. 😏

    HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
  2. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    19 Aug '15 00:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't care much about those other people, I just care that I am right. That is what matters to me. That is why I am a young earth creationists and a Christian, because I believe I am right and sonhouse is wrong. 😏

    HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
    I do believe people are flawed, all of us myself included. I can believe I'm right, it doesn't
    mean I am no matter how much announce it to the world.
  3. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    19 Aug '15 00:14
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I do believe people are flawed, all of us myself included. I can believe I'm right, it doesn't
    mean I am no matter how much announce it to the world.
    Very nicely said.
  4. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    19 Aug '15 00:531 edit
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Very nicely said.
    Be that is it may, but I see KellyJay here as dodging and ignoring the import of ideas and knowledge he disagrees with (or that contradicts his ideology) by simply declaring their proponents to be "flawed". Furthermore, he is seeking to pass this imperviousness off as 'modesty' on his part.
  5. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116760
    19 Aug '15 04:40
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I just care that I am right. That is what matters to me.
    In all seriousness, you are not open to any knowledge other than what you have decided is the truth. I pointed you towards those scriptures about baptism in Jesus name (a simple scriptural based fact that could have helped you see a few impostant truths differently), and you completely ignored it. And despite the absolute clarity of scripture.
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    19 Aug '15 07:44
    Originally posted by divegeester
    In all seriousness, you are not open to any knowledge other than what you have decided is the truth. I pointed you towards those scriptures about baptism in Jesus name (a simple scriptural based fact that could have helped you see a few impostant truths differently), and you completely ignored it. And despite the absolute clarity of scripture.
    Those scriptures do not prove baptism must be performed in the name of Jesus ONLY. It apparently was performed in the name of Jesus Christ. However, Jesus did not say go baptize in MY name ONLY, but He said go and baptize in the Name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY SPIRIT. See Matthew 28:19. Jesus is the SON, Jesus is not the FATHER, nor is Jesus the HOLY SPIRIT.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    19 Aug '15 10:01
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Those scriptures do not prove baptism must be performed in the name of Jesus ONLY. It apparently was performed in the name of Jesus Christ. However, Jesus did not say go baptize in MY name ONLY, but He said go and baptize in the Name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY SPIRIT. See Matthew 28:19. Jesus is the SON, Jesus is not the FATHER, nor is Jesus the HOLY SPIRIT.
    Well, we ALL knew that. We also know there is no holy spirit, no bible father and probably never was a person called Jesus.
  8. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    19 Aug '15 13:441 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    As I believe as soon as you get people, money, and fame involved you will see such
    things. That said, you'll see it on both sides of this or any other debate. To punch on one
    side only as if that were the only one with people who can be grossly dishonest just
    shows one's own prejudice. Seeing 'catastrophic errors even if was made by honest or
    dishonest ...[text shortened]... ing them will be flawed they are human which does
    not at all mean their side is wrong or right.
    It's not prejudice. I WAS a creationist (YEC, even). Evidence turned me toward the light and I saw the shadow puppets for what they were.

    This dispute is not between two sides equally prone to error. It is a dispute between science (within which there is plenty of dispute) and anti-science informed by bad theology. The errors do not balance. One side is wholly wrong. That doesn't mean that the other side is 100% correct, nor free of error, nor without human ambitions interfering with perception.

    However, the methodologies of science create a process of inquiry that is self-correcting. Creationists hardly even update their lies. Creationists continually appeal to the young and naive. They target children and uninformed legislators (who are like children in what they will do for a few cookies).
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    19 Aug '15 14:001 edit
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    It's not prejudice. I WAS a creationist (YEC, even). Evidence turned me toward the light and I saw the shadow puppets for what they were.

    This dispute is not between two sides equally prone to error. It is a dispute between science (within which there is plenty of dispute) and anti-science informed by bad theology. The errors do not balance. One side is w ...[text shortened]... ldren and uninformed legislators (who are like children in what they will do for a few cookies).
    Shadow Puppets, the name of an Ender's game book!

    All those pseudoscience video's are not aimed to kill evolution directly. They are aimed to garner votes so they can build a political block that will attempt to sway legislators to see things their way, teaching creationism in a science classroom and I am sure they have further agenda's if for some terrible reason they win that argument.
  10. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66706
    19 Aug '15 15:471 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    All those pseudoscience video's are not aimed to kill evolution directly. They are aimed to garner votes so they can build a political block that will attempt to sway legislators to see things their way, teaching creationism in a science classroom and I am sure they have further agenda's if for some terrible reason they win that argument.
    To think that the nation that put a man on the moon consists about one third of people who think that moon is less than 6000 years old!

    All the craters on it were created looking really old, by a god who takes delight in playing games and deceiving us!

    A possible explanation is religious schizophrenia - where the person thinks that they are forced to believe something for the sake of their eternal salvation that is actually so absurd, that in real life they block it out of their minds, because otherwise they could not function in a modern society.

    This may be the reason why the US, with its extremely high proportion of confessing "Christians", is actually no different, and sometimes a lot worse, than other countries when it comes to following the actual precepts of Jesus. (e.g loving your neighbour, caring for the poor, etc)
  11. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    19 Aug '15 17:35
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Shadow Puppets, the name of an Ender's game book!
    And a reference to the Allegory of the Cave (Plato, The Republic).
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157807
    19 Aug '15 17:46
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    It's not prejudice. I WAS a creationist (YEC, even). Evidence turned me toward the light and I saw the shadow puppets for what they were.

    This dispute is not between two sides equally prone to error. It is a dispute between science (within which there is plenty of dispute) and anti-science informed by bad theology. The errors do not balance. One side is w ...[text shortened]... ldren and uninformed legislators (who are like children in what they will do for a few cookies).
    Well if true why would you update reality? The issues I've seen with a few people here is
    that they want to hold God to man's views of reality, and if God cannot do what they think
    God should have done, God can not have done it. The trouble they have is if God did
    create the universe as you once claimed He did, nothing among all of their methods
    would matter towards validating that fact!

    I agree both sides are prone to error, you have me completely in your camp on that one
    point; however, God isn't limited, nor is He subject to how man thinks He should have
    done it, He is the Creator, and if He did it as He said all the arguments of man are mute.

    I'm not sure why you call what Creationist have lies, at best it is a point they could be
    mistaken on. I think you've really drank the Kool-Aid on that point.
  13. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    19 Aug '15 18:381 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I'm not sure why you call what Creationist have lies, ...
    Scientific Creationism and Error
    by Robert Schadewald
    Copyright © 1986
    Reprinted from Creation/Evolution (v. 6, n. 1, pp. 1-9)
    with permission from the author.

    Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations and the professions of faith made by individual creationists. Because creationism is first and foremost a matter of Biblical faith, evidence from the natural world can only be of secondary importance. Authoritarian systems like creationism tend to instill in their adherents a peculiar view of truth.

    Many prominent creationists apparently have the same view of truth as political radicals: whatever advances the cause is true, whatever damages the cause is false. From this viewpoint, errors should be covered up where possible and only acknowledged when failure to do so threatens greater damage to the cause. If colleagues spread errors, it is better not to criticize them publicly. Better to have followers deceived than to have them question the legitimacy of their leaders. In science, fame accrues to those who overturn errors. In dogmatic systems, one who unnecessarily exposes an error to the public is a traitor or an apostate.

    Ironically, creationists make much of scientific errors. The "Nebraska Man" fiasco, where the tooth of an extinct peccary was misidentified as belonging to a primitive human, is ubiquitous in creationist literature and debate presentations. So is the "Piltdown Man" hoax. Indeed, creationist propagandists often present these two scientific errors as characteristic of paleoanthropology. It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast, creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them.

    Duane Gish, a protein biochemist with a Ph.D. from Berkeley, is vice president of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and creationism's best-known spokesman. A veteran of perhaps 150 public debates and thousands of lectures and sermons on creationism, Gish is revered among creationists as a great scientist and a tireless fighter for the truth. Among noncreationists, however, Gish has a reputation for making erroneous statements and then pugnaciously refusing to acknowledge them. One example is an unfinished epic which might be called the tale of two proteins.

    read the rest at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
  14. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    19 Aug '15 18:41
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I agree both sides are prone to error, you have me completely in your camp on that one
    point; ...
    We do not agree.

    Reread my post that you quoted. You missed a key word in the sentence that you repeated.
  15. Standard memberWulebgr
    Angler
    River City
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    16907
    19 Aug '15 18:44
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I think you've really drank the Kool-Aid on that point.
    I do not consume sugared drinks.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree