To a creationist, there is no circle, only dots.
Posted on 04/20/2003 10:36:35 AM PDT by JHL
On Easter of all days, Gary Trudeau uses his Doonesbury cartoon to insult Christians in general, and George Bush's faith in particular. How quick the liberals are to condemn someone else's faith and belief system, but just let a Christian say anything negative about another's belief system and how quick they are to invoke an injunction against "judgementalism."
You can read the cartoon for yourself at the following link CLICK HERE for cartoon
Those "Christians" who believe in evolution are NOT Christians. It's just a label they like to apply so they feel good about themselves.
The Bible makes it VERY clear that all we see and don't see was created in seven, twenty-four hour days. This is what God says through the Hebrew. There is NO confusion on that and neither is there confusion that He is NOT an ape. Humans were made in Hisimage as stated in the Bible. To date there have been NO transitional animal to human bones found so He is validated.
Actually, this is precisely true of YOU:
"mostly as an excuse for self-congratulatory superior self-righteousness and a platform from which to insult people who displease them."
You see your platform is atheism. And you can't stand it when someone disagrees with you or doesn't compromise. Till the day I die, I won't compromise on God and His word. What is comforting to me is that eveidence validates ALL He says. SO truth, whether it be Biblical or scientific only enhances my faith.
"If your faith is such a good thing, try being a better example of it."
I am being a "better example" of it. I stick to truth and do NOT compromise to make people feel good. It is you who desperately needs help in the spiritual department. I have NO intention on being a compromised Christian. To do so and buy into evolution calls the Judeo Christian God a liar. This is not a possibility.
Those "Christians" who believe in evolution are NOT Christians. It's just a label they like to apply so they feel good about themselves.
Are you accusing me of not being a Christian?
Even the Pope has said:
“new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis”
There are many Christians who see no contradiction between Christianity and a theistic theory of evolution.
Who appointed you as the GREAT JUDGE who determines who is Christian or not?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! What sad, twisted, little excuse for a mind you have!
Ever thought that Jesus was playing to His audience? It would be much like a modern preacher saying, "and just like the prodigal son..."this is a prime example of the tendency of some to "spiritualize" a literal event. In the passage, Jesus was refering to a SPECIFIC person (Noah) and a SPECIFIC event (the flood). Jesus was clear here...you just chose to ignore it. If you do that with the entire Bible, it becomes worthless.
So, you believe your interpretation of that passage is the only possible interpretation? There is nothing therein that says Jesus was referring to a real event or simply referencing a commonly known story to illustrate a point. The passage can be interpreted either way. Mine fits with the facts. Yours does not.
Like it or not, Genesis does not square with the physical evidence
Of course, this is not true...evidence abounds of the flood....you just chose to ignore and/or try to fit this evidence into the ridiculous tale of Evolution...a religion that takes much more faith to believe in then Christianity!
There is no evidence of a world-wide flood. This is what we would expect to see if the there had actually been a world-wide flood. But, of course, geology is as evil as biology, isn't it?
Your rather childish approach to Scripture will cost the Lord souls. People will see you for the ignorant fool you are and turn away from God, thinking that only morons would worship such a deity*. You will one day have to explain yourself to the Almighty on this one.
*Note, folks, that this sentence will be most likely be taken out of context by LBB.
Ah, another arbiter of who is, and is not, a Christian. Nowhere does it say one must be a creationist to be saved.
Indeed. Just as we might say that someone is "sulking in his tent, like Achilles," without believing in the literal truth of the Iliad when it speaks of such a character, or of the Olympian gods.
so by your way of thinking, when Jesus talked about Noah, He really meant the Piltdown man.
People will see you for the ignorant fool you are and turn away from God, thinking that only morons would worship such a deity
insults...now we are seeing your true heart...didn't take very long.
Only to those who wish to cover their eyes and sing, "la la la I can't hear you". To those willing to examine the evidence, however, they prove quite a bit.
You can see people with numerous different head shapes today, they are all human nevertheless.
Yawn. And yet, no one, anywhere today, has skulls like most of those in the photo. Conversely, no modern-type skull has ever been found anywhere prior to a few hundred thousand years ago.
To show that one evolved from another you would have to date with certainty each and every one of those skulls. Most of them cannot be dated.
Sorry, but you're quite mistaken.
To show that one evolved with certainty from another, you would have to have the rest of the skeleton to see more features.
Again, you are quite mistaken.
To show that one evolved from another you would have to know how the internal organs developed on those skulls.
Again, quite mistaken. This is getting to be quite a habit for you, isn't it?
To prove the gradual evolution of one from another you would need the DNA of those organisms.
Wrong again.
You cannot get DNA from fossils except in very, very exceptional circumstances.
It's not *that* rare. And the times that DNA has been recovered, it supports the evolutionary view.
In short, the skulls prove nothing at all.
Finish this sentence: "There are none so blind..."
They didn't need to. They have features which are unmistakably either combinations of traits that today are found either *only* in humans or *only* in apes, and/or combine ape-only features and human-only features together on the same skull.
In addition, the age and gelogic locations of the specimens are consistent with being transitional (time-wise and location-wise) between prior and latter species, plus their features are logical modifications of fossils which are found even earlier. Finally, DNA analysis of modern men, apes, and other species is entirely consistent with the "family tree" implied by the fossil finds.
And so on, and so on, and...
When looked at via an evolutionary model, the literally millions of pieces of evidence all fit smoothly together like a well-crafted jigsaw puzzle forming a coherent picture. When looked at via any other model, they are just a messy jumble of random finds, and/or self-contradictory.
The premise that these skulls are transitional ape-humans is based upon a world-view that is predisposed to evolution.
Not really, no. See above. Their very existence makes the most sense if they are the products of evolution.
Creationists like to bray about one of the few dishonest scandals in the history of paleontology, the Piltdown hoax, but it's interesting to note that even before it was proven to be a forgery, the two Piltdown skulls were relegated to a "what the hell?" status precisely *because* they stood out as anomalies and didn't "fit" smoothly into the jigsaw puzzle of the evolutionary model, LIKE ALL THE GENUINE FOSSILS DO. That's strong food for thought -- why would real specimens fit nicely into the evolutionary model when a forgery didn't? If evolution weren't true, then *many* natural specimens would be a "square peg" fit. And yet, they're not. Additionally, the fact that the forgery *didn't* fit indicates that the evolutionary model isn't just so loose as to make room for any old "discovery".
Are there any other plausible explanations for these skulls other than that they are "transitional ape-humans?" I think the answer to this is yes.
Go for it. I have my own non-evolutionary explanation for these skulls, and I am very satisfied with it. I simply don't have the time to get into a long, drawn-out debate on the subject.
Gah -- another "I win but I won't show you my cards" post. How... convenient.
One is that a belief in Creationism is not at odds with either micro-evolution or natural selection.
Correct, although many Creationists would argue with you on that.
Creationism, like evolution, is a position that is based on evidence. The difference is how the two camps choose to interpret the evidence.
That's not entirely accurate -- creationists are famous for outright rejecting a lot of evidence they find uncomfortable, and/or flat-out distorting or lying about it.
Not all of them, I hasten to add. But a significant number do -- enough that it's a well-known problem.
Actually, I did answer all your questions. Try working on your reading comprehension.
You have proven nothing. Instead you supply mythology and more evolution propaganda NOT based on evidence. You lean heavily on the finite knowledge base of other atheists. To be an atheist, one must resort to this as you have demonstrated. All you will do is give some like myself a huge belly chuckle and fellow atheists more delusional information upon which to fantasize on and spur on the stupid idea that God doesn't exist nor has the ability to do anyting beyond your finite imagination and knowledge.
Have you run down yet? Are you sure? Ok, good.
Your failure to address any particular thing I actually wrote is duly noted. Since you clearly just want to go on generic rants against the "atheists" you keep railing about in nearly every post, I'll stop wasting my time trying to actually have a discussion with you.
All you've succeeded in doing is make a fool of yourself.
You keep saying this, as if repeating it often enough will be more convincing than actually pointing out specific flaws in anything I've written.
You are too blind to see it and too much pride to acknowledge it.
I'll "acknowledge" that I'm a fool just as soon as someone demonstrates that I am one. Simple ranting and namecalling on your part, I'm afraid, doesn't cut it.
To a creationist, there is no circle, only dots.
What a moronic non sequiter. He was referring to a literary figure. Of course, you've simply proven to be the two-dimensional thinker we've pegged you to be.
I tend to agree.
I do know for a fact that contrary to the previous poster's claim, MOST Christians do not believe in evolution.
Anyone can check out the countless mainstream Christian websites and find they almost all maintian a pro-creation, anti-evolution veiwpoint.
An extremely small minority attempt to reconcile evolution with Biblical creation.
Where did *that* come from? Oh, right, I mentioned checking the evidence, so you have to desperately discredit such wild notions as doing reality checks from time to time.
No, sorry, I'm not going to be touting any "evidence" that there are "little green men", I prefer to stick to what's real, and the actual evidence.
And that just gives you fits, doesn't it?
Truly, you grieve God by failing to use your God given brain.
I'm sure God will get over it. *You* seem to be the one most bent out of shape.
Something does not come out of nothing as evolutions wish so desperately to believe.
Your poor grasp of evolution is quite clear -- no "evolutions [sic]" claim that "something came out of nothing". Perhaps *you* might want to "use your God given brain" one of these days and hit the library before you make another attempt at critiquing something you know so little about.
Faulty dating systems don't add substance to your wild claims either.
What "faulty dating systems" would those be? Be specific and show your work.
Oh, right, the ones that produce evidence that contradicts some of your beliefs. "If the facts don't fit the theory, they must be disposed of", right?
How willing you are to declare the Bible vindicated in every respect when archaeologists uncover an ancient city mentioned in the Bible, and yet how quickly you reject any findings, no matter how well verified, which appear to contradict one of your pet beliefs.
That's not very... honest, is it? By accepting/rejecting evidence based solely on whether or not it supports what you want to believe, then "Truly, you grieve God by failing to use your God given brain."
Now would be a great time for you to explain exactly why, for example, an isochron dating system could produce what you claim is a "faulty" date if the isochron indicates consistency? I'll wait.
Also explain how these "faulty" dating methods produce "good" dates for countless objects of *known* age (including many biblical artifacts) and yet "suddenly" produce "faulty" dates when the object being dated might happen to contradict the claim of a creationist?
Of course you don't wish to admit that your premise is that this is all there is hence, no role for the Judeo Christian God.
Since that *isn't* my premise, then no, I'm not going to "admit" that it is. I'm no liar. I must again repeat something I said to you earlier:
Look, son, *you're* the one with enough "vanity and ego" to think that you have me all figured out, when you've managed to be wrong on every guess so far.
According to you, He just couldn't get His act together.
No, actually, that's not anything I've ever said or subscribed to. Yet again for your edification:
Look, son, *you're* the one with enough "vanity and ego" to think that you have me all figured out, when you've managed to be wrong on every guess so far.Hmm, looks like I'm going to have to hotkey that one real soon.
He needed millions and millions of years, or is it billions now to create an ape.
Apparently so, since the first apes appear a few billion years after the Earth itself did, and a few hundred million years after the first multicellular life. *I* don't presume to declare that it's because "God couldn't get his act together" -- that's *your* conclusion.
The odds of that happening defy common sense alone.
You forgot to show your math.
Yet, you wish to believe all this popycock because it suits your atheist outlook.
Ah, time to invoke the new hotkey, it's *such* a time-saver:
Look, son, *you're* the one with enough "vanity and ego" to think that you have me all figured out, when you've managed to be wrong on every guess so far.I'll tell you this one more time -- stop trying to presume my motives and beliefs, you do such a poor job of it.
Wow, the arrogance of this declaration is breathtaking. So now *you're* the arbiter of who is "really" a Christian and who is not, eh?
Who died and made you the Pope? Oh, speaking of which, the Pope has stated that evolution is not necessarily inconsistent with Christian faith -- is *he* not Christian?
The Bible makes it VERY clear that all we see and don't see was created in seven, twenty-four hour days. This is what God says through the Hebrew. There is NO confusion on that
And yet, the various things mentioned in Genesis actually formed at different times, across several billion years. I hope that doesn't make your head explode.
Humans were made in Hisimage as stated in the Bible.
Why does God have an appendix?
To date there have been NO transitional animal to human bones found so He is validated.
You are quite mistaken.
You see your platform is atheism.
I can't "see" what isn't true. Where's that hotkey? Ah, there it is:
Look, son, *you're* the one with enough "vanity and ego" to think that you have me all figured out, when you've managed to be wrong on every guess so far.
And you can't stand it when someone disagrees with you or doesn't compromise.
Wrong again. See above hotkeyed phrase.
Till the day I die, I won't compromise on God and His word.
Hearing those voices again?
What is comforting to me is that eveidence validates ALL He says.
Except, for example, those "all made in six days" and "a flood covered the entire Earth" parts -- lots of evidence not only fails to "validate" those, they heavily contradict them.
Or are you back to picking and choosing your evidence based on whatever happens to fit your beliefs again?
SO truth, whether it be Biblical or scientific only enhances my faith.
Not counting those pesky dating methods, the geologic record, and so on...
["If your faith is such a good thing, try being a better example of it."]
I am being a "better example" of it.
*cough*
To do so and buy into evolution calls the Judeo Christian God a liar. This is not a possibility.
Perhaps the humans who scribed Genesis just misunderstood a few of the finer points.
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.