Spirituality
16 Aug 15
18 Aug 15
Originally posted by KellyJayI 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. 😏
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.
HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI do believe people are flawed, all of us myself included. I can believe I'm right, it doesn't
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!
mean I am no matter how much announce it to the world.
Originally posted by vistesdBe 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.
Very nicely said.
19 Aug 15
-Removed-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.
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsWell, we ALL knew that. We also know there is no holy spirit, no bible father and probably never was a person called Jesus.
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.
Originally posted by KellyJayIt'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.
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.
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).
19 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrShadow Puppets, the name of an Ender's game book!
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).
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.
Originally posted by sonhouseTo 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 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.
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)
19 Aug 15
Originally posted by WulebgrWell if true why would you update reality? The issues I've seen with a few people here is
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).
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.
Originally posted by KellyJayScientific Creationism and Error
I'm not sure why you call what Creationist have lies, ...
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