Louisiana Confounds the Science Thought Police - Neo-Darwinism is no longer a protected orthodoxy...

National Review Online ^ | July 08, 2008 | John G. West

[Philly Nomad]

Mark 16:17-18 King James Version (KJV)
17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So it’s obvious, you don’t really believe in Jesus if you don’t handle snakes. The bible says it.

[js1138]

“The extinction of old forms is the almost inevitable consequence of the production of new forms. We can understand why when a species has once disappeared it never reappears.

One would assume that extinction by degeneration of the genome would most severely affect the fastest breeders, those that reproduce at the fastest rate and have the most generations in a given period of time.

[Fichori]

Mark 16:17-18 King James Version (KJV)
17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

So it’s obvious, you don’t really believe in Jesus if you don’t handle snakes. The bible says it.

And do pray tell, when was the last time the pope 'took up a serpent'?

Does the pope believe in Christ?

That ol' boy needs to get himself out to a snake farm pronto!


As far as that goes, when was the last time you handled a snake?

I think you need to find yourself a viper too. (preferably a very poisonous one, because they work better.)
(Per Paul's example)

Speaking of poisonous things, it mentions drinking something deadly in verse 18.

Go ahead, take a swig, lets see if your a believer. ;)

I mean, after all, thats what the bible says.

Right?

[Philly Nomad]

Who wrote: I'm a Evangelical Christian who believes the Bible takes precedent over atheistic science.

I mean really, science says if you handle poisonous snakes you'll get bit, sick and maybe die. Jesus says if you believe in him, you'll be able to handle poisonous snakes and not be harmed in the slightest.

So who you going to believe, Jesus or Science?

[Fichori]

Who wrote: I'm a Evangelical Christian who believes the Bible takes precedent over atheistic science.

I mean really, science says if you handle poisonous snakes you'll get bit, sick and maybe die. Jesus says if you believe in him, you'll be able to handle poisonous snakes and not be harmed in the slightest.

So who you going to believe, Jesus or Science?

(Nice bait-n-switch/strawman.)

Romans 8:28 says And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.
That includes poisonous snake bites.

I believe that intentionally exposing yourself to poisonous snakes as a show of faith (or whatever crazy reason people do it for) would fall under the heading of tempting God.
(Something that Ananias and Sapphira discovered was not very smart.)


I believe that Mark 16:17-18 is talking about what was demonstrated by Paul in Acts 28:3 and elsewhere.

So, not only do I believe the Bible trumps atheistic science^{(Big Bang, Evolution, Etc)}, I also believe that God trumps all science.^{(Miracles, Supernatural Creation, Virgin Birth of Christ, Etc)}


And since you seem to be using them interchangeably....
Science is a useful tool for studying the world around us.
Atheistic science is a religious dogma.

Try to not get them confused.

[Philly Nomad]

So basically, you don’t really believe in God.

[gscc]

“So far, evolution has not been falsified every time it has been tested”

The evolution model should be verifiable through the fossil record, yet there is no proof, represented by transitional life forms. Trying to protect your inability to prove that by a falsifiable model standard speaks to how valid your “science” is.

[MirrorField]

OK, tell me about the Utopias created in the name of Atheism?

There are no utopias. Never has been and never will be. Nevertheless...

Atheism is not a political system. Neither is it an economic system. It's not even a religion (did you know that certain flavors of Buddhism are atheistic?). What atheism is is simply a lack of belief in god or gods, nothing more.

Communism killed how many 100’s of millions? And brought what “good” to the world?

Communism does not equal Atheism. Communism was an economic system (lousy and broken from start, but that's outside the scope of this post). While Communist dictatorships promoted atheism as part of their ideology, it does not follow that atheism was reason or even an important cause for their behaviour.

If there was comparison, we could talk about that edifying little episode called "Thirty Years' War", all putatively in name of christianity. It may have not killed hundreds of millions, but there were not enough population for that in those days. Excess mortality from that little conflict is estimated to be 15-20% of the entire population. If the population had been comparable to today, we wouldn't be talking about megadeaths. We would be talking about gigadeaths...

[Fichori]

"So basically, you don’t really believe in God."

Your appearance of having a complete lack of wisdom and discernment concerning this subject leads me to believe that you are no follower of Christ.

I profess to believe in God and no contortion you might put the scriptures through can deny my belief.


So tell me, by your standard, does the pope believe in God?
(i.e., handle snakes)

[Philly Nomad]

Fichori,

Why should the Pope (or myself) for that matter be held to your heretical “logic?” I am not claiming “the Bible takes precedent over atheistic science.”

Those are your words, and by your own words you are a failure of a Christian. The Bible says in plain language that “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them”

I show you an pretty clear cut instance of Science and the Bible contradicting each other, you try to change the subject. You are just like all those other free-fundies, you claim the Bible is always right, but you’ll never take a risk to prove it.

[Fichori]

"Why should the Pope (or myself) for that matter be held to your heretical “logic?” I am not claiming “the Bible takes precedent over atheistic science.”" [excerpt]

Atheistic science has determined that there is no need for a God.

"Those are your words, and by your own words you are a failure of a [Catholic] Christian. The Bible says in plain language that “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them”" [excerpt, corrected]

Correct, I'm not a Catholic.
And your right, the Bible does say that about taking up serpents, and Paul did demonstrate it.

But to say that unless one exhibits all those things they are not a believer, requires gross ignorance of the scriptures.
(And nowhere does the Bible say that, to be a believer you have to 'take up serpents'.)

"I show you an pretty clear cut instance of Science and the Bible contradicting each other, you try to change the subject. You are just like all those other free-fundies, you claim the Bible is always right, but you’ll never take a risk to prove it." [excerpt]

Strawmaning again are we.

Do you remember what I said about confusing science and atheistic science?

And remember, if the Bible is not always right, your faith is built on a lie.

[Philly Nomad]

Science is science, there’s no such thing as atheistic science. Because, science will change their beliefs to fit with the data, Evangelicals will never change their mind. Walk up to an Atheist, ask him what evidence would he need to see to believe in God.

Go to a Evangelical as him what evidence would he need to see to not believe in God.

The Atheist will give you an answer, the Evangelical will just spout nonsense like you’ve been doing for the last few days.

[onewhowatches]

huh?

You're question was if mankind evolved from apes, how come there are still apes. The answer is because not all apes evolved. Whether you agree with answer or not, it's the answer that scientists have answered repeatedly.

The analogy I attempted to use was that if a woman changed her maiden name, when she gets married, it does not mean that all people with her maiden name change their name. Similarly, when one (or a few) apes started to evolve towards humans, not all apes did.

(Strictly speaking, humans did not evolve from modern apes. Rather modern apes and humans have a common ancestor, but that's a different question.)

[Fichori]

"Science is science, there’s no such thing as atheistic science. [excerpt]

If a scientist chooses to use a methodology that denies God (as many do), then that is atheistic science.
May I suggest you read this

"Because, science will change their beliefs to fit with the data, Evangelicals will never change their mind. Walk up to an Atheist, ask him what evidence would he need to see to believe in God." [excerpt]

If atheistic science can blow your faith over, your not standing on the Rock.

"Go to a Evangelical as[k] him what evidence would he need to see to not believe in God." [excerpt, corrected]

And if he has faith, nothing will case him to disbelieve.

"The Atheist will give you an answer, the Evangelical will just spout nonsense like you’ve been doing for the last few days." [excerpt]

Looks like I've got your nerves strung as tight as banjo strings.
(Perhaps I'll play "Blow the man down")


If you have more faith in science than you do in God's promise, are you not lost?

Ephesians 2:8 says "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:"

If you disbelieve God because of the creations of man, you are indeed lost.

[gscc]

“Whether you agree with answer or not, it’s the answer that scientists have answered repeatedly.”

Completely wrong - that is the answer they repeatedly give - they have not answered the question.

[gscc]

“The Atheist will give you an answer, the Evangelical will just spout nonsense like you’ve been doing for the last few days.”

When they start this line of debate you know they are not confident in their position.

[Philly Nomad]

Ok, you have to be a troll, a plant from DU to make Evangelicals look stupid.

I’m done taking to you.

I’ll say a prayer for your soul.

[Fichori]

Ok, you have to be a troll, a plant from DU to make Evangelicals look stupid.

I’m done taking to you.

I’ll say a prayer for your soul.

LOL!

That is too gut busting funny!

[alstewartfan]

To me, Non-Sequitur, the idea of ID rests in the fact that the probability of life existing naturalistically is infinitesimally low, in fact impossible. The irreducible complexity of even one single cell belies evolutionary theory. But, neither ID OR evolution should be taught as *science* in schools, as Darwinism currently is. To me, it is a pernicious, grand hoax, like “global warming”, which causes people to feel needlessly despairing. Blessings, Bob

[Non-Sequitur]

To me, Non-Sequitur, the idea of ID rests in the fact that the probability of life existing naturalistically is infinitesimally low, in fact impossible.

In other words, the idea of ID rests not on evidence supporting it, but attempts to discredit evolution and then say ID must be right by default.