Posted on 06/20/2009 6:18:21 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Since when did telling the truth constitute a personal attack?
If it's true that most evolutionists don't give a damn about what you creationists are up to, then why are there almost 70 pages of Creationists say the darnedest things over at DC.
The frothing at the mouth over there about creationists is hysterical.
It seems to be a compulsion of theirs to be obsessed with others sexual practices.
He’s certainly not the first evo to make comments like that.
Believing that the Bible is true and truth is a big step towards making any claim of being a Christian credible.
If you think that the Bible is fake, a story, a allegory, or anything but the truth, they you’re calling God a liar. If He’s a liar, then nothing He said in the Bible can be counted on and there can be no salvation from a lie.
“If you think that the Bible is fake, a story, a allegory, or anything but the truth, they you’re calling God a liar.”
If you believe that the Bible contains no allegory and instead faithfully swallow the deceitful writings of fraudulent authors with no scientific credentials, then you, madam, are not the Christian you profess to be. You are instead a member of a cult sect whose definition of itself and of others is of but academic interest to real Christians.
authors with no scientific credentialsA physician named Luke wrote a gospel.
He has a history of personal attacks. His personal attacks on me occurred several weeks ago. What is DC?
However says Buck W.,
“I not only profess to be a Christian, I am in fact a Christian. I need no lectures from the fascist wing of the faith, represented by you, on how to read and interpret the book. You and your ilk do a great disservice to Christianity, as your actions and positions are more in line with maintaining a social pecking order in your megachurch than they are with the true practice of Christianity.
Your weak understanding of the New Covenant, while a thrilling conversation enabler at your post-service coffee klatches, is a mockery of the truth of Christianity. To paraphrase Pogo, you, yourself, are the enemy you seek.”
200 people is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of people who know evolution is God's way. This fully supports my theory that vast majority evolutionists do not give a damn what you Creationists say or do. Those 200 are probably the ones who got annoyed at the ankle biting.
If. But that is a weak ASSumption to begin with since I've very clearly stated what my views on that are.
Starting with a false presumption is necessary, I suppose, if you want to accuse someone of not being a Christian.
FWIW, You're the one who's publicly stated on this forum that you think the Bible is allegory. When asked if you think any of it is true, or actually happened or is real, refuse to answer.
You might as well have just fessed up, because your silence on that issue, answers the question just as well.
The good doctor went as far as to write......
Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
But clearly, since Luke believed that all this *literally* happened, he couldn't be considered a *real* scientist, so his credentials mean nothing....
BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Sources?
crickets......
The topic at hand is whether or not nature provides evidence of being teleological; the concept of eternity is irrelevant to that discussion.
The fact that infants die of cancer is extremely relevant however, as compelling evidence that nature is not teleological in character.
“The topic at hand is whether or not nature provides evidence of being teleological; the concept of eternity is irrelevant to that discussion.”
Only if you demand it be, but most folks understand there’s beyond nature and outside of natural science.
In a fallen world, infants also die in car wrecks, but this doesn’t mean everything we know isn’t automatically without design.
“The topic at hand is whether or not nature provides evidence of being teleological; the concept of eternity is irrelevant to that discussion.”
Only if you demand it be, but most folks understand there’s beyond nature and outside of natural science.
In a fallen world, infants also die in car wrecks, but this doesn’t mean everything we know isn’t automatically without design.
The guy who wrote the article stated that "teleology is obvious in nature": that is the point of discussion and why appeals to anything outside of nature are irrelevant.
Car wrecks are also irrelevant. In the case of an infant who is dying from cancer, you have an instance of a young body that is simultaneously trying to grow as well as destroy itself. That blows teleological arguments out of the water.
Ah..no. cancer is a failure of some system, a malfunction, so what?
As you've now affirmed the antecedent, the consequent part of my logical proposition is therefore true. I will repeat it for you: then you, madam, are not the Christian you profess to be. You are instead a member of a cult sect whose definition of itself and of others is of but academic interest to real Christians.
And I have no intention of filling out your Christian scorecard. Several of your fellow cultists have admitted to me over the weekend that they do not believe that Catholics and Episcopalians are Christians. Do you share their belief?
So what? That "failure of some system" (especially in the context of a young life) is direct evidence that nature is non-teleological.
That's what.
And you simply saying it is so should be enough?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.