Difficult questions

Originally posted by nook7
of course it is. the way to perpetuate your blindness is to ignore it.

I do not ignore the ignorance of the atheists and the evolutionists.
I try to educate them on the Holy Bible and ask them to read it for
themselves. But they have been so indoctrinated that they will not
listen to reason. They are very much like the Jehovah's Witnesses,
who stubbornly stick to their belief no matter how many time they
are shown to be wrong. The atheists claim not to be religious but
I think it takes more faith to believe as they do than for me to
believe in the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not ignore the ignorance of the atheists and the evolutionists.
I try to educate them on the Holy Bible and ask them to read it for
themselves. But they have been so indoctrinated that they will not
listen to reason. They are very much like the Jehovah's Witnesses,
who stubbornly stick to their belief no matter how many time they
are shown to be ...[text shortened]... t
I think it takes more faith to believe as they do than for me to
believe in the Holy Bible.

Please show me an example of where Evolution has been proven to be wrong?

If you like l can point out numerous errors and inconsistencies in your bible.

The only ignorance here is that coming from your head buried deep in the sand.

Originally posted by nook7
Please show me an example of where Evolution has been proven to be wrong?

If you like l can point out numerous errors and inconsistencies in your bible.

The only ignorance here is that coming from your head buried deep in the sand.

May I add.......

This is a common ground with dishonest science and dishonest religion.

They say the jolly green giant is true and leave it up to the other to disprove the giant.

It is trickery because how can anyone disprove the giant because the giant believer will just say they have seen the giant.

With a situation like this the giant believe has to get honest and give up the trick.

But there is a power behind all things so the giant believer has to embrace honesty again and acknowledge the power..............they don't have to agree to call it by a name but must at least with honesty acknowledge its reality.

Because the jolly green giant story is wearing thin.

Originally posted by Dasa
May I add.......

This is a common ground with dishonest science and dishonest religion.

They say the jolly green giant is true and leave it up to the other to disprove the giant.

It is trickery because how can anyone disprove the giant because the giant believer will just say they have seen the giant.

With a situation like this the giant believe has ...[text shortened]... t with honesty acknowledge its reality.

Because the jolly green giant story is wearing thin.

The Jolly Green giant is true.

If you dont believe it you are being dishonest.

If you deny it you are being dishonest.

If you think differently from this it is because you are being dishonest

Are you honest?

Originally posted by nook7
The Jolly Green giant is true.

If you dont believe it you are being dishonest.

If you deny it you are being dishonest.

If you think differently from this it is because you are being dishonest

Are you honest?

When someone resorts to humour and sarcasm it means they have become entangled in their own web of falsity.

Originally posted by Dasa
When someone resorts to humour and sarcasm it means they have become entangled in their own web of falsity.

If not with humour, then how do you suggest people react if they honestly find you funny?

Originally posted by FMF
If not with humour, then how do you suggest people react if they honestly find you funny?

What truth do you find funny?

That killing is not acceptable.....as I have presented

Maybe that life doesn't come from non life........that I have presented

Or dead bodies don't jump from the grave..........that I have presented.

Or could it be that the 8.400.000 species didn't crawl out of a muddy puddle without cause or plan as science suggest.......that I have presented.

These truths I have been presenting but dishonest persons are defending it all.

What say you?

I would think it is sadly funny that dishonest persons defend all this nonsense.

I don't.

Are you believing their humour has anything of substance or is the rants of fools.

Originally posted by Dasa
What truth do you find funny?

That killing is not acceptable.....as I have presented

Maybe that life doesn't come from non life........that I have presented

Or dead bodies don't jump from the grave..........that I have presented.

Or could it be that the 8.400.000 species didn't crawl out of a muddy puddle without cause or plan as science suggest.... ...[text shortened]... don't.

Are you believing their humour has anything of substance or is the rants of fools.

I try to treat you with respect Dasa - for instance I never try to impose my belief system on you - but I think you must surely be aware that a lot of people here think you are funny. You've been here long enough to realize that you are widely seen as one of the most alienating counter-productive advocates of a particular "spiritual" mind set that many members of this community have ever encountered.

So, if I may, I will repeat my unanswered question: If not with humour, then how do you suggest people react to you if they honestly find you funny?

Originally posted by nook7
Please show me an example of where Evolution has been proven to be wrong?

If you like l can point out numerous errors and inconsistencies in your bible.

The only ignorance here is that coming from your head buried deep in the sand.

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic
material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic
material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms.
Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution
to proceed. Changing the DNA does not produce New genetic material.

There is virtually nothing in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of
a transitional life form. When apparent examples of useful mutations are
examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist
anywhere in the fossil record.

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The
seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as
early as the mid 19th century, and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main
objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural
selection.

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna,
seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether
there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively
short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such
rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of
animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based
mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in
Cambrian rocks.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic
material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic
material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms.
Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution
to proceed. Changing the DNA does not produce New genetic mat ...[text shortened]... e, based
mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in
Cambrian rocks.

Very interesting post, but alas you have not yet brought forth anything that supports your claim.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic
material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic
material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms.
Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution
to proceed. Changing the DNA does not produce New genetic mat ...[text shortened]... e, based
mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in
Cambrian rocks.

Will you be following this post up with another to credit the sources from which you have cut-and-pasted this material?

Originally posted by Dasa
When someone resorts to humour and sarcasm it means they have become entangled in their own web of falsity.

When someone resorts to humour and sarcasm, it can be an attempt to divert their thoughts away from the sheer ridiculousness of what they see other people post and attempt to pass off as fact.

Originally posted by nook7
Very interesting post, but alas you have not yet brought forth anything that supports your claim.

Where is your evidence that what I have said is not true?
Where is all the proof in the fossil record of the missing links of
one creature evolving into another creature?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Where is your evidence that what I have said is not true?
Where is all the proof in the fossil record of the missing links of
one creature evolving into another creature?

There are one or two listed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not ignore the ignorance of the atheists and the evolutionists.
I try to educate them on the Holy Bible and ask them to read it for
themselves. But they have been so indoctrinated that they will not
listen to reason. They are very much like the Jehovah's Witnesses,
who stubbornly stick to their belief no matter how many time they
are shown to be ...[text shortened]... t
I think it takes more faith to believe as they do than for me to
believe in the Holy Bible.

But they have been so indoctrinated that they will not listen to reason.

Can you explain how it's possible to indoctrinate oneself?! You see, my views on evolution came about by me buying books and also reading books from my local library on the topic. No one has ever 'taught' me anything on the subject, apart from postings on this website.