1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo new species can arise without a variation within a specie. No animal comes by from nothing. That's creationism, not evolution.
wrong there is no plausible evidence of one form of life mutating into another, what you are observing and describing is variation with a species, that is not Darwinian evolutionary theory as you are very well aware.
All these other assertions can equally be applied to evolutionary theory and a completely materialistic view of the emergence of l ...[text shortened]... chance occurrence from non intelligent sources than it does to believe in a beneficent creator.
I don't want to call today's theory of evolution as Darwinian, because now we know much more than good ol' Darwin knew in his time.
Now, once more you think that evolution deals with how life came into being. It doesn't. A very common mistake by creationists. Are we talking about evolution or abiogenesis? I'm talking about evolution.
I used a very common argument by creationists: "Noone was there to see it when an ape went into a human, so I cannot believe it." I use the same (silly) argument "Noone was there to see the creation to take place, therefore I cannot believe it." If you invalidize my argument, then you should also invalidize the creatinists one as well.
There is a difference though: We see the sign of evolution every day. We cannot see any trace of creation. We cannot see any sudden event that took place of creation. We see the Earth was forming, not in the order of one of the different genisis sagas, but as a continous history from the start of the proto-Earth, to what we see today. Same with the Fauna and Flora. Dinosaurs was gone way earlier that humans came into being. A progressive history. Not all at once. What we see today is not of a one-time event.
So if you believe in a creation, well, that's your religion, that's not science. Whenever you say that "I know creation isn't science" we are on the same page. Until then, I have to coninously protest when you tell me about unscientific creationism.
Originally posted by FabianFnasyea yeah, blad de blah, the usual cry of the evolutionist, abiogenesis is not evolution, call it what you want it amounts to the same thing a purely material view of the emergence and the diversification of life. Simply calling it another name does not negate this fact, but we are perfectly aware of your pedantic approach. creationist see evidence of creation every day, the animal creation, the design of a feather, the ocean filtration system, everywhere. I advocate creationism because it is scientifically sound and more plausible than the evolutionary hypothesis, sorry, but you need to get over the fact, that evolution is a belief system like any other, simply terming it science does not make it any different.
No new species can arise without a variation within a specie. No animal comes by from nothing. That's creationism, not evolution.
I don't want to call today's theory of evolution as Darwinian, because now we know much more than good ol' Darwin knew in his time.
Now, once more you think that evolution deals with how life came into being. It doesn't. A ...[text shortened]... en, I have to coninously protest when you tell me about unscientific creationism.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWait here a little... ðŸ˜
yea yeah, blad de blah, the usual cry of the evolutionist,
Do you want respect from me, then you have to give respect in return. If you take every chance of being sarcastic, ironic, pejorative, and ridiculative, then you show your true face. And also the true face of every Jehovas Witness. Is this you're aiming at? To show your superiority to any other human being that doesn't share your religious beliefs? Did Jesus do that? No? Then you shouldn't do that either.
You know how you hate to be called a JW culter. And yet you're behave equally bad. When we have a dialogue going, I try to keep a standard of not abusing you, yet you lower yourself to abuse me whenever you can. Is that what you are? A abuser, a stalker?
Now show you're a worthy opponent to me, show me that you're not a low life JW culter, another non-thinking creationst papagallo who think that you've learnt anything by insulting others?
Rewrite your last posting, and this time, with respect. From now on, behave!
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasa stalker? my goodness i gloss over your posts because i am concerned with other affairs and you bring them to my attention a second and third time and i am a stalker? no chance! what can i say, i dont tolerate the same arguments from evolutionists again and again and again and again, cant you just ignore the blad de blah bit?
Wait here a little... ðŸ˜
Do you want respect from me, then you have to give respect in return. If you take every chance of being sarcastic, ironic, pejorative, and ridiculative, then you show your true face. And also the true face of every Jehovas Witness. Is this you're aiming at? To show your superiority to any other human being that doesn't share y g others?
Rewrite your last posting, and this time, with respect. From now on, behave!
ok dont get your knickers in a twist, here it is
abiogenesis is not evolution, call it what you want it amounts to the same thing a purely material view of the emergence and the diversification of life. Simply calling it another name does not negate this fact, but we are perfectly aware of this pedantic approach. creationist see evidence of creation every day, the animal creation, the design of a feather, the ocean filtration system, everywhere. I advocate creationism because it is scientifically sound and more plausible than the evolutionary hypothesis, sorry, but you need to get over the fact, that evolution is a belief system like any other, simply terming it science does not make it any different.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd yet you continue. Behave I said! ðŸ˜
i dont tolerate the same arguments from evolutionists again and again and again and again, cant you just ignore the blad de blah bit?
If I want to be insulted, then I go to the masochist club from the beginning.
If you're not serious in your debate, then your beliefs are not serious either.
If you behave like a fraud, then you are a fraud.
Are you interested in a serious debate, or are you not?
Originally posted by robbie carrobiesorry Conrau my son, you and Origen are making no sense whatsoever, he is full of contradictions, you are trying your very best to accommodate his contradictions, and at every turn there is something new that needs to be explained, its no wonder he contributed to much dissension and was eventually termed heretic.
sorry Conrau my son, you and Origen are making no sense whatsoever, he is full of contradictions, you are trying your very best to accommodate his contradictions, and at every turn there is something new that needs to be explained, its no wonder he contributed to much dissension and was eventually termed heretic.
i do not like your proposed expl ...[text shortened]... ng a beginning, as to chronology, it means something else, although what, i am not really sure.
No. Origen has explained what he meant by 'creature'; you have simply imposed your own interpretation on it, irrespective of what language Origen spoke and what philosophical framework shaped his definition of it. Origen does not mean 'created entity'. He means something like 'Animate being'. This actually accords better to the normal use of 'creature' (we do not call all created entities 'creatures' -- only animate and living ones.)
This is in no way a reflection on you or your beliefs although clearly there is an attempt to superimpose exegesis upon scripture when the text is ambiguous and the language may be exploited.
The accusation fits you more. The idea that Jesus is an archangel is not at all expressed in Paul's saying 'with an archangel's voice' and Hebrews 1 clearly repudiates the idea that Jesus is an angel.
Originally posted by Conrau Kno it doesn't, it merely elevates him above angels, which an archangel would naturally be 🙂
[b]sorry Conrau my son, you and Origen are making no sense whatsoever, he is full of contradictions, you are trying your very best to accommodate his contradictions, and at every turn there is something new that needs to be explained, its no wonder he contributed to much dissension and was eventually termed heretic.
No. Origen has explained what he ...[text shortened]... changel's voice' and Hebrews 1 clearly repudiates the idea that Jesus is an angel.[/b]
Originally posted by FabianFnasok ok, relax, im just messing around, what is there to debate, you are an evolutionist, i am a creationist, we have been through this before Fabian, so many times, i tire of it, again and again, can we not talk of something else, i beg you, any scripture that you like, any passage that you find interesting, any proverbial utterance that contains wisdom, anything but evolution v creationism!
And yet you continue. Behave I said! ðŸ˜
If I want to be insulted, then I go to the masochist club from the beginning.
If you're not serious in your debate, then your beliefs are not serious either.
If you behave like a fraud, then you are a fraud.
Are you interested in a serious debate, or are you not?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAn archangel is an angel. There is no substantial difference. Whether seraphim, cherubim, throne or principality, virtue or throne, they are all angels and Christ is clearly above them all.
no it doesn't, it merely elevates him above angels, which an archangel would naturally be 🙂
Originally posted by Conrau Knope there is a clear difference, arch means principle angel, is used only ever in the singular indicating that there is only one.
An archangel is an angel. There is no substantial difference. Whether seraphim, cherubim, throne or principality, virtue or throne, they are all angels and Christ is clearly above them all.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA king is a man too. So is the archangel an angel. The archangel is clearly above his angels but remains an angel nonetheless. We were discussing Origen by the way and whether he believed Christ to be an angel. The evidence is woefully lacking.
nope there is a clear difference, arch means principle angel, is used only ever in the singular indicating that there is only one.
Originally posted by Conrau Kwhut?
A king is a man too. So is the archangel an angel. The archangel is clearly above his angels but remains an angel nonetheless. We were discussing Origen by the way and whether he believed Christ to be an angel. The evidence is woefully lacking.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGood grief Rob.
yea yeah, blad de blah, the usual cry of the evolutionist, abiogenesis is not evolution, call it what you want it amounts to the same thing a purely material view of the emergence and the diversification of life. Simply calling it another name does not negate this fact, but we are perfectly aware of your pedantic approach. creationist see evidence ...[text shortened]... ion is a belief system like any other, simply terming it science does not make it any different.
Pointing out your ignorance in thinking abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing is not pendantic. That you think it is shows how dumb you can be.
Evolutionary theory is a theory arising from biology, and its remit consists of explaining the observed diversity of the biosphere once living organisms exist. The origin of life is a separate question, and one which is covered by the theory of naturalistic abiogenesis, which is a theory arising from a different scientific discipline, namely organic chemistry.
(Copied and pinched off another forum)
Could you tell me where i could attain a degree in Creation Science?!
1 edit
ok Noobster are you denying that they have as a common denominator a purely materialistic view of the emergence and diversity of life? nope then what's your problem? given the context of the argument i think its perfectly reasonable to draw the comparison, no matter how you may whinge. As for a degree, did not Michael Behe, professor of microbiology and others try to get it incorporated into the curriculum but were prevented and taken to court for their efforts? Apparently one needs to close ones mind to the possibility of an intelligent source in order to fully grasp the evolutionary hypothesis! Pathetic!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAn analogy -
ok Noobster are you denying that they have as a common denominator a purely materialistic view of the emergence and diversity of life? nope then what's your problem? given the context of the argument i think its perfectly reasonable to draw the comparison, no matter how you may whinge. As for a degree, did not Michael Behe, professor of microbiolo ...[text shortened]... bility of an intelligent source in order to fully grasp the evolutionary hypothesis! Pathetic!
"Let's talk about Christianity Rob"
"Okay, what particular bit do you want to talk about?"
"I'd like to talk about the story of Savitri and Satyavan!!"
"That's not Christianity, that's Hinduism!!"
"Well it's all the same thing, the explanation of the world through made up stories!!!"