Attrocities of 'Christianity', history of the Churches

Originally posted by Proper Knob
design = intelligence = God, has been around for a while now. With everyone involved best intentions it has gotten nowhere fast.

So your putting yourself on a pedestal next to Einstein today, i look forward to reading your work.

sigh, plagiarism is rife! Einstein himself stated that our knowledge is limited, like a
man wanting to learn more about the moon by standing upon his rooftop, and here we
have Hamilton claiming all sorts, i chuckled hard at that.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I am treating you with respect, and I get this from you?

"Ops .. sorry .. you dont believe in what Christ said !"

Do you think I've not been respectful, do you feel like have insulted you or
attempted to twist your words to mean something other than what you have
said? I can only think that the reason you said what I quoted was too simply
insult me ...[text shortened]... 'll not attempt to be mean spirited to you
I only ask you treat me the same way.
Kelly

Did you not say Kelly, that following the commandments of Christ is not enough for salvation?

Well if you stand by that statement then Im entitled to state that "you dont believe what Christ said". Christ said that the way to salvation is to follow his commandments.

In any case, how is it an insult to state that you dont believe what Christ said, when you clearly dont?

Re John 3.. the transformation is supposed to be brought about by baptism, PLUS a promise to God to become a new person and devote your life to following Christ. Not everyone follows through with that promise. Those who follow through will do good works as defined by Christ. Those who dont do good works were not transformed.

The proof that the transformation took place is the good works which result.

Is it your position that the works is not important and regardless of whether or not good works is done, the person will still get salvation?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sigh, plagiarism is rife! Einstein himself stated that our knowledge is limited, like a
man wanting to learn more about the moon by standing upon his rooftop, and here we
have Hamilton claiming all sorts, i chuckled hard at that.

How does claiming our knowledge is limited mean evolution doesn't occur? I'm failing to see the connection there.

Also, i find it more then odd that you have admitted you've never read any literature on the evidence for evolution, or plan to, for fear it might diminish your faith. Yet here you are claiming what is scientific fact and what is not. Hilarious.

You are clueless on this topic man, utterly clueless.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How does claiming our knowledge is limited mean evolution doesn't occur? I'm failing to see the connection there.

Also, i find it more then odd that you have admitted you've never read any literature on the evidence for evolution, or plan to, for fear it might diminish your faith. Yet here you are claiming what is scientific fact and what is not. Hilarious.

You are clueless on this topic man, utterly clueless.

i never said that it did not occur did I, i merely called into question Hamilton's claims
that evolution has been proven to the extent that it may be considered a viable
explanation for the emergence and diversification of life. Indeed we tested this with
the stealth capabilities of the owls feather, evolution, no answer! how many others
questions shall we ask of it before it finally crumbles into the sea?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i never said that it did not occur did I, i merely called into question Hamilton's claims
that evolution has been proven to the extent that it may be considered a viable
explanation for the emergence and diversification of life. Indeed we tested this with
the stealth capabilities of the owls feather, evolution, no answer! how many others
questions shall we ask of it before it finally crumbles into the sea?

If you want to know about an owls feather, maybe you should post the question to an evolutionary biologist who specializes in feather evolution.

Secondly, evolution is the established scientific process by which we see the diversification of life on this planet. It is accepted by countless scientists worldwide from a whole sway of different scientific fields. If you think it's false and have evidence for such a claim which comes to something more substantial than - 'But that's not what the Bible says?!' - feel free to write your paper and slay this evolutionary beast once and for all.

Until then, you're merely whistling in the wind my good man with your pants round your ankles. Trust me, it's not a pretty sight.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
If you want to know about an owls feather, maybe you should post the question to an evolutionary biologist who specializes in feather evolution.

Secondly, evolution is the established scientific process by which we see the diversification of life on this planet. It is accepted by countless scientists worldwide from a whole sway of different scientifi the wind my good man with your pants round your ankles. Trust me, it's not a pretty sight.

feather evolution, muhahaha! dont you mean feather design. As for scientists, there
are plenty who deny it is responsible for the diversification of life. Anyhow you have a
chess game to contend, the dragon slayer v the dragon master! there is something to
be said for the warm summer breeze blowing around ones nether region.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Did you not say Kelly, that following the commandments of Christ is not enough for salvation?

Well if you stand by that statement then Im entitled to state that "you dont believe what Christ said". Christ said that the way to salvation is to follow his commandments.

In any case, how is it an insult to state that you dont believe what Christ said, when ...[text shortened]... tant and regardless of whether or not good works is done, the person will still get salvation?

You really don't grasp what I've said, so you insult me is what I pointed out
to you. I've never said that good works were not important, we will be doing
good works, I never said we are not to follow Christ's words we will be following
Christ's words. I have said and maintained that you must believe in your heart
and be born again, an atheist can claim to follow Christ's words and not be
right with God.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You really don't grasp what I've said, so you insult me is what I pointed out
to you. I've never said that good works were not important, we will be doing
good works, I never said we are not to follow Christ's words we will be following
Christ's words. I have said and maintained that you must believe in your heart
and be born again, an atheist can claim to follow Christ's words and not be
right with God.
Kelly

It is no insult to say that you dont believe in what Christ said.

Christ said to follow Him and that His words will lead to salvation. But you say following Christ is not sufficient for salvation.

Im just repeating what you said of yourself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
science has already proven this??? how has science proven it? are you claiming that
evolution is responsible for the emergence of life as well as the diversification of life,
how has science proven it? why can you not create life now if science has proven it? It
should be fairly easy after all, or are we to presume that technology is not up ed for sure!

http://www.owlpages.com/articles.php?section=Owl+Physiology&title=Feathers

“....science has already proven this??? how has science proven it? ...”

I have already repeatedly given websites that shows the massive quantities of evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt of the fact of evolution only to find that creationists here trash it by just pretending that the evidence doesn't exist. Would you really want me to repeat this? -here we go again:

read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

here is a more direct link to JUST ONE of its other pages from the above link:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

scroll about three-fifths down until you see in blue print:

"...Example 1: mammalian ear bones and reptile jaws
Example 2: pharyngeal pouches and branchial arches
Example 3: snake and whale embryos with legs
Example 4: embryonic human tail
Example 5: marsupial eggshell and caruncle ...”

read through each of the above AND the other pages and then tell me how you can look at these pieces of evidence so to NOT conclude that they are evidence for evolution?


“...are you claiming that evolution is responsible for the emergence of life as well as the diversification of life, ...”

NO. Where did you get that from? The rest of that paragraph the above quote come from is nonsense because of this. NOBODY here is claiming that evolution created the first life because evolution isn't a theory of the emergence of the first life. Also, evolution cannot be wrong because it doesn't explain the emergence of the first life any more than a theory about how the sun works can be wrong because it doesn't explain how lions hunt in packs.

“...Did all the noisy owls die off leaving only the ones with stealth capability? ...”

eventually, yes. Why is that a problem for you? The ones that can fly less noisily would have an obvious competitive advantage over those that can't.

“....http://www.owlpages.com/articles.php?section=Owl+Physiology&title=Feathers ...”

so what? This is the kind of thing expected from evolution.

“...designed for sure! ...”

No. It isn't even evidence for intelligent design for evolution explains it just fine.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....science has already proven this??? how has science proven it? ...”

I have already repeatedly given websites that shows the massive quantities of evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt of the fact of evolution only to find that creationists here trash it by just pretending that the evidence doesn't exist. Would you really want me to repeat t

No. It isn't even evidence for intelligent design for evolution explains it just fine.

biggest pile of utter postulation and conjecture ever seen on these boards, Hamilton
has made the statement that all noisy owls died out leaving only the ones with stealth
capability behind, evidence none. Let us ask him how the owls feather developed
stealth capability?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You really don't grasp what I've said, so you insult me is what I pointed out
to you. I've never said that good works were not important, we will be doing
good works, I never said we are not to follow Christ's words we will be following
Christ's words. I have said and maintained that you must believe in your heart
and be born again, an atheist can claim to follow Christ's words and not be
right with God.
Kelly

Hi. just wondering what you mean by being "born again"? Thanks.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
biggest pile of utter postulation and conjecture ever seen on these boards, Hamilton
has made the statement that all noisy owls died out leaving only the ones with stealth
capability behind, evidence none. Let us ask him how the owls feather developed
stealth capability?

“...biggest pile of utter postulation and conjecture ever seen on these boards, ...”

No, just evidence in the form of observations. Have you actually read it? Is, for example, the observation that human embryos have vestige gills just “ utter postulation and conjecture” ? do you deny that they have gills?

“...Let us ask him how the owls feather developed
stealth capability? ….”

evolution. .
Those that had less noisy feathers had an OBVIOUS survival advantage due to better ability to hear their pray as they fly and also less chance of their pray hearing them coming. Exactly what part of that or evolution do you imply is absurd?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...biggest pile of utter postulation and conjecture ever seen on these boards, ...”

No, just evidence in the form of observations. Have you actually read it? Is, for example, the observation that human embryos have vestige gills just “ utter postulation and conjecture” ? do you deny that they have gills?

“...Let us ask him how the owls feather ...[text shortened]... f their pray hearing them coming. Exactly what part of that or evolution do you imply is absurd?

i am interested in ascertaining how the feather developed stealth capabilities, you
stating that it is obvious is not an answer, in fact, its a nonsense. Why can you not
honestly state that you have no idea, that you have no evidence and that what you
have stated is utter conjecture. What part of, 'where is the evidence?', do you not
understand?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am interested in ascertaining how the feather developed stealth capabilities, you
stating that it is obvious is not an answer, in fact, its a nonsense. Why can you not
honestly state that you have no idea, that you have no evidence and that what you
have stated is utter conjecture. What part of, 'where is the evidence?', do you not
understand?

“...i am interested in ascertaining how the feather developed stealth capabilities, you
stating that it is obvious is not an answer, ...”

I didn't state that how the feather developed stealth capabilities is “obvious” -I suggested that the advantage of having that capability is obvious thus implying that natural selection would select this. And I answered your question with one word: “evolution”. Note that there is no word “obvious” in the word “evolution” -read my post again.

“...What part of, 'where is the evidence?', do you not
understand? ...”

I have just given you the evidence and now you just pretend that it isn't there to plainly see.
So I ask you again; do you deny, for example, the observation that human embryos have vestige gills?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...i am interested in ascertaining how the feather developed stealth capabilities, you
stating that it is obvious is not an answer, ...”

I didn't state that how the feather developed stealth capabilities is “obvious” -I suggested that the advantage of having that capability is obvious thus implying that natural selection would select this. And you again; do you deny, for example, the observation that human embryos have vestige gills?

i am uninterested in discussing anything until this matter, for which you have not
provided even the measliest of explanations as to how it could have possibly
developed, yet you had the audacity to claim that science has proven many great
things. It is to laugh. I tell you what, ill give you a concession, lets start with the
feather, how did the feather develop? In simple and clear terms if you please.