03 May 2010

Are you ready for the rapture?

Here's a simple test to see if you are rapture-ready.

  1. Do you hate your life?
    The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. John 12:25
  2. Do you hate your family?
    If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. -- Luke 14:26
  3. Do other people hate you?
    Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven. -- Luke 6:22-23
  4. Do you hate them back?
    Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? ... I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. -- Psalm 139:21-22

59 comments:

Il Censore said...

Nice collection!

ZachsMind said...

To be honest, one could probably dig around in the bible for an equal number of similar quotes talking about loving everybody. Means nothing, but makes for amusing atheist propaganda.

ernesto said...

According to this, scumbags of society like mass murderers should be rapture material.

On a second thought, why shouldn't they? god himself is a mass murderer.

Matthew Blanchette said...

ZachsMind, it means everything, especially if you discount this whole site as "atheist propaganda"; has your God, in his eternal wisdom, granted you the power to say what is true and what is false?

Liz said...

"19 If only you would slay the wicked, O God!
Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!

20 They speak of you with evil intent;
your adversaries misuse your name.

21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
and abhor those who rise up against you?

22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.

24 See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting."
I am a believer. I do not claim to know right from wrong. I do not claim to know God. This is my opinion, and I am not speaking on behalf of Christians, but simply for myself.
Regarding your fourth point: It's important to not simply state one verse and base an entire generalization upon it. CONTEXT is the key word in this sense. I think when David wrote this he was calling out to God for help. Not claiming that it was GOOD to hate all those who hate God. Instead he knew these feelings he had were wrong. See verse 24 there. "See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." He is asking God to find the wrong in his heart and help heal it. Just my opinion though.

skanksta said...

@Liz,

"I am a believer. I do not claim to know right from wrong. I do not claim to know God."

When you say, "I am a believer" I think you DO - implicitly - in fact, claim to know god.

Are you being honest ?

The Black Bot said...

Zach said: "To be honest, one could probably dig around in the bible for an equal number of similar quotes talking about loving everybody"

True, the Bible contradicts itself a thousand times over. One use verses to support or appose any issue. The Bible can easily say what you want it to.

Matthew Blanchette said...

One uses verses to support or appose any issue. The Bible can easily say what you want it to.

Indeed; it's sort of like a fortune cookie, or the I Ching, that way, isn't it?

Liz said...

@skansta,
That's not what I meant. I do have a personal faith in God, and He is in my heart, however I do not know His being. I cannot begin to comprehend His ways, choices, intentions, meanings, etc. But I can try, as a believer, to interpret for nonbelievers what He was trying to say in a verse of the Bible.
Is that the only aspect of my post you have a response to? I am sincerely curious what you think about my comments, because I'd like to have a discussion about this. I'm not here to trash anyone or anything that's been said. I just wanted to voice my opinion. The reason I intro'd as I did was to avoid the reaction that often occurs to these types of conversations, and that is: a generalization is made of all Christians based off of one's words/opinion. We're all different, and we're all sinners too. I am SURELY not claiming to be perfect, cause man, I sin, I really do. I'm stumbling along just like the rest of the world, trying to get by. Thankfully my only advantage is that I have our Creator to rely on so I don't have to carry these burdens on my own.
Thanks for responding :)

skanksta said...

@Liz,

I didn't really have any other response, but - since you want a discussion...
1) why do you feel that your private and deeply personal belief - that the god of the jews DOES exist AND must be the creator of the universe because he sent his only son to earth to be crucified - gives you any insight in to deciphering what passages of this book mean ?

2) Does it help you with English comprehension ?
3) Can you help others understand bizarre passages of the quran ? or the ending to the Coen brothers film I watched last night?

4)Why DOESN'T your belief help you "understand god's being," but it DOES help you understand passages of the book he wrote ?

5) Since we're on the subject of David... why does your personal belief make you more able to understand the 'true meaning' of 2 Sam 12 12-16 ?

6) What IS the 'true meaning' of 2 Sam 12-16 ?

7) Suppose, I think that the 'true meaning' of this passage is - 'This is a wicked bronze-age superstition, NOT a divine message from the creator of the universe'. Does my personal belief in Allah, mean my interpretation is more, or less valid ?

Nick said...

@Liz,,

First of all, stop including everyone into your religion and generalizing for that matter.

I am not a sinner, I was not born so broken that I would need to follow the church just so I could become I decent person. Again, I do not sin, I don't do anything that I have a need to feel guilty for or ashamed of. I am spiritually whole and growing at a level that is comfortable with my natural moral code. You might be broken but not everyone is.

Ok, onto your reply. Remember it's all in the context, read about everything David did, not just that one passage. You are generalizing over one part of a whole story that has been covered here already. David really was like that.

And anyways the passage that you layed out doesn't look to me like David wanted god to fix his mistakes, it read more like "See all of our enemies, I hate them and I am much better than they are, check my heart and mind and see for yourself and continue guiding me into your arms"


When I hear or read a sentance that states to search and know someones heart it reads more like it is already set and they just want to prove it.

John Notter Jr. said...

Oh! the foolishness of the blind and deluded! You poor people will understand too late that your foolishness has destroyed you!

In your ignorance, you claim to be the omniscient. Do you have enough knowledge of all that is in the universe so that you can logically count God out of it. Humanity's knowledge of the universe is probably about one percent of all the knowledge acquirable, so you have blindly judged God as a foolish notion without having all of the required facts to make such a decision.

Well did the prophets of the New Testament foresee this this willful ignorance over two thousand years ago. You people are fulfilling prophecy showing that Christ--the Lover of your eternal souls, is about to return. Please repent! He takes no pleasure in sending you into eternal judgement, but He loves you enough to honor your foolish choice.

"But these people mock and curse the things they do not understand. Like animals, they do whatever their instincts tell them, and they bring about their own destruction." Jude 1:10

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation. For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 2 Peter 3:3-5

To the last post. Just because you don't believe you are in need of forgiveness doesn't make it true. Truth is truth whether you believe the truth is true. The truth is that you are a godless sinner who will suffer in eternity. The good news is that you don't have too. Jesus Christ died to forgive you.

You will never understand exactly what this "nice collection" of verses mean until you repent of your own ignorance of God. You need Him or you will quake before the Eternal Judge when He unfolds every deed, thought and word in about a thousand years! Or, you will praise Him for the eternal sacrifice of Christ on your behalf. The choice is yours.

twillight said...

@John Notter Jr.
Into you buddy too!


@Liz
As Nick said.

Nick said...

@John,

Oh you make it soo easy to turn this around on you, the foolishness of the blind and deluded? Need I say more?

Where in any post on this entire blog has anyone ever claimed to be omniscient? There's one thing going for you, belief in the bible has made it possible to come to any conclusion you want no matter what the words say.

And do you have enough knowledge of all that is in the univerce to logically count god in? And no, faith in the bible does not count as logic. I for one have not counted god out of the universe, only the silly book called the bible, and I did that logically. And I have never judged god as a foolish notion, only the the man made books that religion uses to control its followers.

And of course the authors of the new testament, and the old testament as well, knew that there would be people that did not believe in them. This is nothing new and fulfills no prophecy, there have been millions of people that never believed in the bible since well, biblical times and the world hasn't ended yet. Nice prophecy there, it is always fulfilled and yet never happens.

And no, I do not believe that I am not in need of forgivness, I only know for a fact that I am without what you would call sin. I am not perfect, no one is, I only know that I wasn't born broken for the amusement of a bible god.

Praise him for the sacrifice of christ? Lol, that is very laughable, in the bible Jesus was dead for all of three days before he was brought back to life, nice sacrifice there.

John Notter Jr. said...

Love you guys! :) You will all be in my prayers. By the way, the Bible has one clear and simple message. It is salvation in Jesus and for the biblically literate, it is found from Genesis to Revelation. I wish I had time to talk to you guys that allege some contradictions, but the contradictions are in your own minds. If the Bible were full of contradictions as you claim, it would have ceased from being the all time bestselling, best studied, and best loved book of all time long ago. Oh! The ignorance of the infidel.

Hypocrites! Hypo--from the Greek word under. Crites--from the Greek word for judge. You have all, sadly, under judged the Bible and the God of it.

However, soon there will be no atheists. When you see He is about to rock this dust-ball. He is about to thump the enemies of Israel while adding to their homeland and He is about to call call His church home. Hopefully, when you see this, you will repent. Remember, He even loves ole' blasphemers like you!

By the way, the point of the prophesies is that when you see an explosion of skeptics and mockers--like yourselves--you will know that you are in the last days. Peter mentioned that it would be from a philosophy that says that the things of today interpret the past--uniformitarianism " And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." This goofy idea came about through the foolishness of Kant, Lyell, and Darwin who plagiarized his ideas of survival of the fittest from a Christian, Edward Blyth. Blyth was showing how micro-evolutionary changes in a species led to a change IN KIND--within the same species. Not the un-verifiable, fact-less, untraceable, and un-substantiated lie of macro- evolution. That demonic doctrine that has no "link" to reality!

It used to be that there were a few Voltaires here and there, but now they appear everywhere; hence, we are in the last days when a one world government will appear after the church goes home. Here is the wikipedia definition of uniformitarianism "“ In the philosophy of naturalism, uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.” Wow! That sounds like 2 Peter 3!

I hope you guys can see that before you stand before the Great King and He stretches out those nail scarred hands to show you how much He loved you...hopefully there will be a good ending for you. In my prayers, JNNJ

MD1985 said...

Wow... got heated in here quick eh?

I don't like the whole "fear, fire and brimstone" when it comes to making our appeal to non believers - that sort of thing tends to turn people off and make them mock rather then fear them into believing. - Sorry John Notter Jr. but as a fellow believer i think you need to remember that Jesus used love to minister to non believers. The bible IS clear about the fate of non believers and its the Holy Spirits job to convict them, not ours - *I* believe we are called to love our neighbour. In fact after Loving God,the bible says its the second greatest commandment (Matt 22:39)

Nick : Being a sinner doesn't mean we sin. Being a sinner means we fall short of the glory of God. Even if i had never sinned in my life, i would still be a sinner because i am born of Adam. We sin because we are sinners, we're not sinners because we sin.

This is what I got from what Liz was trying to say: she isn't putting herself in a higher place then non-belivers in her mind, she isn't being "self-righteous". She wasn't saying that SHE thinks she is better then non-belivers, just that she is privelaged enough to experience God's love and Grace.

Liz said...

The reason I generalize everyone as sinners is because that's the Christian belief. I can't "stop" believing in my beliefs.
I'm very young, and I have a lot to learn. To be 100% honest, I am feeling overwhelmed by these responses. I feel as though every single word I say is put under a microscope and being scrutinized, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, however it's, as I said, overwhelming, and I'm just going to stop before I get into an argument. I'm not sure why being a Christian gives me the right to say I can explain to a nonbeliever what the Bible is saying. I don't know why I said that except that I meant it to be helpful, because it's my religion and is written by fellow believers. Sorry if I offended you, and I sincerely hope you come to Jesus someday. He loves you all, and so do I. I've learned a lot from this blog, and have appreciated, as well as disagreed, but still appreciated the posts.

MD1985 said...

Liz - i don't believe you need to apologise or back peddle from your beliefs or comments.

We are called to be a perculiar people (1 Peter 2)- not to conform to the ways of the world. Of course you are going to come up against some scrutiny when commenting on a blog written by an unbeliever.

You are not saying you have "the right" to say what the bible is saying - rather you are giving your view as a believer on it - just like the non believers are giving their view on it as un belivers.

Being true to what you believe is not a bad thing, don't let yourself FEEL that you are being bullied here, just realise that there is a majority of people on here who don't believe the same thing.

skanksta said...

Liz,
You didn't offend me at all, I was just asking you to logically scrutinize what you were saying.
I didn't think what you said stood up.

If a Muslim/Hindu/follower of any other gods or holy books, said, "you're wrong" THIS book, or THIS belief is in fact the word of god and THIS is the way to follow him/predict the end of the world etc. you would, doubtless not believe them.

You would doubtless think, "that's a silly, erroneous belief that they could only believe in, if they were indoctrinated in to it from an early age - it's just so illogical".

Can you not see why those NOT indoctrinated apply that same logical standard test to the belief that you were indoctrinated with from a young age ?

@ John Notter Jr.
Can you please stop all this "evolution isn't true" bollocks?!

Science works - every time a criminal is trapped by DNA profiling, every time cancer treatments are tested, every time new antibiotics are invented... ALL this rests on the unified theory of biology - without Darwin they couldn't happen and wouldn't work.

You know full well that you take antibiotics rather than pray, you know that a conviction on DNA is safe and one based on asking priests isn't - so be honest with yourself and others, ffs!

John Notter Jr. said...

@ Skanskta

Thanks for your comment. I do know a great deal about science seeing I taught it for over twenty years at various levels. Also, I have spent years at undergrad and grad level work. At nearly fifty, I am still working on degrees.


Process or operational science follows the scientific method and it has been a great benefit for humanity as it was the type of science founded by good ole' Christians like Newton and Bacon who were piecing together the great creation of God around them. It is from this type of verifiable, repeatable science that all of these blessings flow.

Then there is the matter of historical science which tries to assess past events which were unobserved. Much of this work involves conjecture that, at best, is still unprovable.

Unfortunately, many in this field work to prove their own paradigms while purposefully ignoring or even hiding evidence that doesn't follow their viewpoint.

Since you brought up DNA (that blessed information storage system which holds the equivalent of 10,000 encyclopedias worth of information in every cell of your body) lets briefly discuss it and the formation of proteins in the cell. Cells disprove muck to man evolution at many levels. They have irreducible complexity. That means that they have many components and all of those components must be in the same place functioning at the same time for them to work. They simply could not evolve separately. If I had a car intact but didn't have spark plugs, the whole car is worthless. Every working part of the system has to be in place at the inception of the system for it to run perfectly. There is integrated complexity where whole systems have to be present all at once. There is specified complexity which means that the proteins had to arrange themselves in that exact configuration or the cell could not function. There is specificity of shape. Some proteins are formed in the exact necessary shape to perform a needed function. Any other protein, no matter how close to that shape, will not work. There is specificity of arrangement. The protein has to be configured in a very specific order and also chains of several proteins in a very specific order in order for them to be viable. On and on the merry go round goes. It leaves one with numbers of probability for their "evolution" so as to make their chances of creation without an intelligence behind them as beyond an overwhelming impossibility.

I know science very well! The evidence for creation is overwhelming if one objectively searches! Remember, "the heavens declare the glory of God." I better quit before I ramble on about astrophysics and such.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”--Robert Jastrow/ astrophysicist

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”--Fred Hoyle/astronomer

@MD1985

Thanks to you too! I hear you and it is not the place here to discuss it further. Remember, in love Jesus was sometimes tough and shocking to shake up the sensibilities. He preached on hell more than anyone!

Just look at some of the very quotes they are mocking here!

Nick said...

@Liz,

Thank you for the apologies, don't listen to the other believers, if more believers were as civil as you and less holier than though than the others then there would be more debates and less arguments.

And as for coming to Jesus, I grew up Pentecostal and left when my eyes opened, I was a full christian for half of my life, I could quote from the bible and have read the bible numerous times.
Comparing the christian part of my life to my non-christian part tells me that I am happier and a much better person than when I was a christian.

And again John, the death of Jesus was nothing of a sacrafice, he was brought back to life three days after his death, ooh what a sacrifice. That's like me taking the battery out of my car for the weekend then putting it back in monday morning.

skanksta said...

@ John Notter Jnr...

Please just stop. Evolution is true and science owes nothing to Christianity.

Of course I'm aware that many devout Christians (Newton being the giant obv.) have advanced scientific knowledge immensely.

Unfortunately for your theory....

Muslim scholars were miles ahead of Christians up to C. 1550 - Ibn Sina (called Avicenna by the Romans) is known as the father of modern medicine. Imams invented algebra, the science of cosmology long before Christian Europe.

Does this mean, that Mohammed is the last and final messenger of god and that god should be called Allah ?

NO.

Atheist Chinese, Hindus and various Indian Asian sects also made numerous, significant scientific breakthroughs - does this mean Sikhs are right, or that Buddha is divine ?

NO.

When the wheel was invented, or agriculture by Pre-Christian societies, does this mean pagan gods are real ?

NO.

When aboriginal Australians first discovered plants that cured diseases, did this mean the world was breathed in to life by a crocodile.

OF COURSE NOT.

Now, please, please, don't profess to be a man of science and state 'evolution isn't true'.

If you could prove it, you'd instantly become one of the richest and most famous men on the planet. You'd also kick-start a huge religious revival across the globe.

Now politely...prove it, or shut up.

John Notter Jr. said...

Back at you! Prove evoLIEtion.

Oops! You can't either! There is no missing link. All supposed evidence has been a lie (like Haekel's embryos), hoax (Like the Piltdown man), or a wish. Remember the birdy (archaeoraptor) from Nat Geo that was exposed as a fraud in 99? What about the latest lie? That little man-monkey that is nothing more than a species of lemur. Find me any proof. Please! Any documented, viable, and verifiable proof for this lie!

YOU CAN'T EITHER!!!!! Please for God's sake find me some evidence. You have had 150 plus years to come up with one link; but, alas, there is none to prove anything because it is a lie.

Also, you left out Anaximander and the Enuma Elish from history out of your diatribe.

I choose to follow the true, verifiable facts found in the only account from an eyewitness. Unlike all of the other books and concepts you mentioned, the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate on those areas where it gives insight. But since it is a book about redemption and faith, telling the secrets of science is not its point. God the Creator of all who was there and He and His marvelous works can be seen if you open your eyes. I used to be a hardened unbeliever like you, so there is hope yet.

I guess you could believe that little green men seeded the earth like ole' Dawkins. Yet,even that idea has the problem that there has not been enough time.

Someone needs to revisit the facts and find that the whole theory is in trouble. Not only that but modern theories of astronomy and geology(radio halos have just about done much of them as well as carbon 14 in every strata of fossils and diamonds which, of course, is undetectable after around 80,000 years. That means that the geologic column--filled with polystrate fossil--is less than 80,00 years old. Huh! Must have been a worldwide flood like Peter alluded to in that chapter I quoted yesterday.)

I came across this site by accident looking for a picture (or divine appointment) and I have other fish to fry. Hope to see you all repent so we can meet in heaven! God Bless, JNNJ

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

MD1985 said...

Wow JNNJ - I'm impressed!

I am not up on all the whole Creation vs Evolution debate.

You have a lot of knowledge and i think it is such an advantage to you, especially in this sort of situation. For the first time i'm kind of wishing i had a little more understanding on this subject :)

Matthew Blanchette said...

Oh jeez... Notter's a nutter! :-S

skanksta said...

I'm no longer talking to you John, you are not a man of science you are a deluded fool.

"prove evolution" indeed - shame on you !

Truckle said...

Oops! You can't either! There is no missing link.

By this very statement I know for a fact you do not understand the modern theory of evolution. There will never be a "missing link" because every new discovery adds two more gaps. The only way there would ever be no more missing links is if we had the remains of every creature that ever lived, which (thankfully) we dont.

All supposed evidence has been a lie (like Haekel's embryos), hoax (Like the Piltdown man), or a wish. Remember the birdy (archaeoraptor) from Nat Geo that was exposed as a fraud in 99? What about the latest lie? That little man-monkey that is nothing more than a species of lemur.

See what you also dont understand was these hoaxes/exaggerations were discovered by SCIENCE not faith. What really scares you about science is that *gasp* it can change its mind depending on the evidence! That is something someone such as you who is so indoctrinated that the bible is innerant doesn't have. That is the only evidence you will ever accept which is why you will never be swayed by any argument that science can ever provide and you will forever remain completely close-minded.

Find me any proof. Please! Any documented, viable, and verifiable proof for this lie!

As I discussed earlier, you will never accept any evidence we provide you if it contradicts the 'biblical view' spouted by the apologists interpretation of the bible. Plenty of evidence is out there, 150 years of it in fact which you are dismissing out of hand because it doesn't fit into your narrow box of "evidence".

YOU CAN'T EITHER!!!!! Please for God's sake find me some evidence. You have had 150 plus years to come up with one link; but, alas, there is none to prove anything because it is a lie.

As I explained earlier, the term link is not scientific, and there never will be a "missing link" to satisfy your bar of proof which will no doubt move once that evidence is provided.

I choose to follow the true, verifiable facts found in the only account from an eyewitness. Unlike all of the other books and concepts you mentioned, the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate on those areas where it gives insight.

Please explain the description of a helio-centric solar system as explained in the bible? The only ones I can come across seem to describe either a flat Earth or a geo-centric Solar System which has now been categorically proved to be incorrect by umm... science, yes thats it, not faith.

But since it is a book about redemption and faith, telling the secrets of science is not its point.

Continued...

Truckle said...

Continued from above

Ah thats clever, so that allows you to pick and choose which parts of the bible are scientifically accurate and those which are meant only as 'stories' or 'parables'.

God the Creator of all who was there and He and His marvelous works can be seen if you open your eyes. I used to be a hardened unbeliever like you, so there is hope yet.

Ah yes, the I used to be like you but now I see. I won't pull a no true scotsman here, however I would encourage everyone to read ALL of the bible, especially the old testament bits explaining just how 'Just' and 'Good' the god of the bible is. It certainly opened my eyes I can tell you.

I guess you could believe that little green men seeded the earth like ole' Dawkins. Yet,even that idea has the problem that there has not been enough time.

Do you get any information from anywhere else than Answers in Genesis? Explain how there has not been enough time for pan-spermia?

In fact, how old do you beleive the Earth to be?

Someone needs to revisit the facts and find that the whole theory is in trouble. Not only that but modern theories of astronomy and geology(radio halos have just about done much of them as well as carbon 14 in every strata of fossils and diamonds which, of course, is undetectable after around 80,000 years. That means that the geologic column--filled with polystrate fossil--is less than 80,00 years old. Huh!

Well now see... Im a geologist, and what you have said here... makes no sense at all? Carbon 14 dating is only useful for around 50,000 years that is true, however what on Earth has that got to do with what you have written? Science knows this, and doesn't rely on Carbon dating for things older than that, and in fact there are many many methods of radio isotope dating, including Potassium/Argon which has a half life of 1.36 billion years so is well capable of measuring ages back into the history of the Earth.

Again this information should not be news to you but your sources of information are clearly extremely narrow, so they just confirm your bias.

Must have been a worldwide flood like Peter alluded to in that chapter I quoted yesterday.)

Again as a geologist I can say with absolute confidence there is no physical evidence of a global flood. Wisespread floods? over large parts of countries? sure. Global? erm no. Please show the scientific evidence for a global flood, I need a good laugh.

I came across this site by accident looking for a picture (or divine appointment) and I have other fish to fry. Hope to see you all repent so we can meet in heaven! God Bless, JNNJ

http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth


Wow, I read the first page of that website, and just lost count of the complete lies, and yes I meant to use the word lies. The claims made in that website are just opinions, not based on science, or any scientific literature, or even any scientific theory. It is all based on the fishbowl of the bible.

I really don't expect John to change his mind on any point I have explained here, however the reason I spent my time writing this response is to show someone such as you Liz that there are many different sources of information on the world out there. Don't be afraid to question your beliefs, actually examine what you believe and try to see what is supported by reality, and what is supported by fantasy.

Thomas said...

All of those actually do apply to the people at Rapture Ready.

They hate their lifes, that’s why they keep begging for god to kill, sorry, rapture them already.

Most of them have relatives they hate because they are sane and don’t believe in the rapture.

They actually revel in the fact that people hate them. It gives them a pretext to feel better than they.

And I hope I need not tell you that the Rapture Ready people are really hateful themselves.

God Sent said...

@skanksta

"The founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view."

"China has no science, because according to her own standard of value she does not need any....China has not discovered the scientific method, because Chinese started from mind, and from one's own mind." -Yu-Lan Fung

"Of course, the skeptic could reply as follows: Many of the most important advances were made by Muslims in the Moorish Spain area, and other infidels."

"But the fact remains that advances in mathematics and engineering do not count as modern science (as I am thinking of), for the Muslims and "other infidels" did not discover the laws of motion, the laws of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of chemistry, the laws of heredity, the law of biogenesis, etc. If you take any introductory undergraduate textbook in physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, physiology, paleontology, etc., it is not hard to point to the knowledge that is indebted to the work of these Christian scientists from Europe. But you would find very little that is indebted to Greek, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist philosophers (aside from tools like mathematics and Arabic numerals)."

"In fact, if you survey other non-christian cultures, their inability to generate modern science renders this clue all the more powerful. For these cultures not only lacked the Christian world view's perception of Nature *and* God, they held to a view that prevented the birth of science. In this view, the Universe was eternal, necessary, cyclical, and organismic. One could argue that this view of the Universe followed from reason and observation (like Geocentrism). "

http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

I believe that the quoted above and the rest of the article refutes all of what you put. If not I can provide more. Please study before you speak.

God Sent said...

@Truckle

The only ones I can come across seem to describe either a flat Earth or a geo-centric Solar System which has now been categorically proved to be incorrect by umm... science, yes thats it, not faith.

The Bible does not teach a flat earth unless you are ignorant of language or hold to a wooden literalism.

For example, "Four corners of the earth" refers to four directions, north, south, east, and west.

Ironically, if you choose not to believe this then I can claim you believe the sun moves up and down. Have you ever watched the sun "rise" or "set?" Obviously, the sun did not go anywhere, but yet you still use that terminology. It would be ignorant for me to claim you believe the sun literally rises and sets.

As for your claim of "geo-centric" it is not supported by the Bible, and a Christian is the one who discovered it is a helio-centric solar system.

The following is from, "You know your a fundamental atheist if..."

You love to castigate Christians for being "anti-science" if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the "science" of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!

God Sent said...

Truckle

Please show the scientific evidence for a global flood

How are fossils, oil, and sandstone form?

@Skanksta

"I'm no longer talking to you John, you are not a man of science you are a deluded fool."

You have just claimed that if John does not measure up to your definition of what a scientist is then he is no man of science.


You have made a religion. If it does not line up with your beliefs of what science is then it is not true. Is science a process of learning or not? If it is a process and things can alway wrong then the General Theory of Evolution can always be wrong. It is ignorant, foolish, and arrogant to say that GTE is true, and nothing else is nor can be.

On the same level, you refuse to separate science into it's two categories of operational and historical, and remain ignorant of the differences between the two. Historical can never be fact but only based off assumptions. You can claim that it is similar to forensic science, but yet even forensics have gotten a lot wrong.

Did you know that the mathematics of the geo-centric solar system that was posed perfectly showed how it worked and even made sense, but yet it ended up being proven wrong despite the mathematical evidence for it. What it came down to was a matter of interpretation. In the end, all historical science comes down to interpretation. To argue that you can only view it one way is ignorant and not scientific, for science tries all possible solutions, and tests all things posed.

In the end, it comes down to your philosophy for that is what is the foundation of science, philosophical concepts which are used to interpret the evidence. Need I show how this is or do you already know this?

God Sent said...

Explain how DNA can survived from dinosaurs which are supposedly around 75 million years old, give or take?

"Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years..."

skanksta said...

Just in case, John's drip feed of wilful lies gains any credence (MD1985?)..
archaeopteryx IS NOT A HOAX!

There are 13 different specimens, discovered over 131 years.
Most are on display in museums, are regularly examined and the London archaeopteryx was even found by Richard Owen - a staunch opponent of Darwinism (it was the 1870s, so that was understandable lol!)

skanksta said...

I have NOT made a religion.

skanksta said...

god sent,

instead of cutting and pasting nonsense, why don't you publish your evidence and disprove evolution ?

You'll win a nobel prize, millions of $$$dollars and spark a major religious revival.

Much better use of your time than bombarding rationalist websites with wilful lies, in the vain hope that you'll confuse some poor uneducated soul.

Nick said...

@God Sent

lol, hypocrite much? Please study before you speak.

you said:
Explain how DNA can survived from dinosaurs which are supposedly around 75 million years old, give or take?

"Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years..."

I say:
However, paleontologist Thomas Kaye of the University of Washington, and his research team contend that what was really inside the T. rex bone was not collagen from the dinosaur's blood vessels, but instead, it was a slimy biofilm produced by bacteria that lived within the spaces once occupied by blood vessels and cells.

And here's a link for you, like you will believe it anyways since it is from a science site.

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2008/07/a_closer_look_at_dinosaur_soft.php

Nick said...

@God Sent

You said:

As for your claim of "geo-centric" it is not supported by the Bible, and a Christian is the one who discovered it is a helio-centric solar system.

I say:

You're an idiot, I cannot believe any christian would use Galileo as a defense, you should be ashamed of yourself. Galileo was tried and found vehemently suspect of heresy and spent his life under house arrest. You guys are quick to re-accept someone once your view catches up to theirs.

John Notter Jr. said...

Biblical writers penned things about outer space that was beyond their ability to learn. For instance, in a time when the rest of humanity believed a man on a turtle’s back held the earth in place, Job wrote that Earth was hung on nothing—Job 26:7. The Bible, to the chagrin of the Middle Ages church leaders, said that Earth was round --Isaiah 40:22. It was just recently discovered that the galaxies are moving away from one another as Einstein and others had predicted. Einstein also predicted that time and space were put together much like a curtain is hung (this is a very simplistic explanation). Eleven different verses by five different authors, ranging from prophets to shepherds, mentioned that God stretched, and still is stretching the heavens—Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13, Psalm 104:2, Job 9:8, Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15 and Zechariah 12:1. How did these men know this information thousands of years before the discoveries?
Any physicist will tell you that the universe exists with three basic components: time, space, and matter. In order for the universe to stay together, you also need energy and motion. Astronomer, Dr. Hugh Ross, once pointed out that these five parts of the universe are recognizable in the first two verses of Genesis. “In the beginning”—time, “God created”--energy or power, “The heavens” –space, “and the earth”—matter, “and the Spirit of God moved”—motion. Was his interpretation correct? You decide.
I could write on this all day, but it would take the fun out of you rediscovering this amazing book for yourself. Here are just a few more things that the scriptures mentioned long before they were discovered. Job said that there were deep water springs in the ocean (I wonder how he swam down there to find out since we just recently have made submarines that are capable of reaching them?)--Job 38:16. The stars are all different—1 Corinthians 15:41. The Bible describes atmospheric circulation—Ecclesiastes 1:6. The scriptures described the principles of fluid dynamics—Job 28:25 (It was proven only 300 years ago that air had weight). Scripture explained that your blood is extremely important for life—Leviticus 17:11 (The Hebrew word for life, nephesh, also means breath and implies oxygen). The Bible shows that your mental and physical health is closely related—Proverbs 12:4, 14:20, 15:30, 16:24 and 17:22. I surely can’t show them all! I’ll share just one more. Several books discuss the hydrologic cycle—Psalm 135:7, Jeremiah 10:13, Job 36: 27-29.
The Holy Bible truly is a unique book. Isn’t it time that you got it out and spent some time reading it?
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory. “ Sir Arthur Eddington/astrophysicist

John Notter Jr. said...

I had to come back just once. The Bible does not teach a flat earth but a round one. If you spent more time researching that rather than going to talk origins you would know. By the way, I have never been to answers in Genesis. Thanks, I'll go there. The fact that the earth is round is found in verses somewhere here in this paper. It is from a newspaper article I wrote years ago. Only misunderstanding churchmen persecuted Galileo. The Bible taught that the Earth is round and that the heavens are expanding, also, Job knew there were deep fresh water springs in the ocean thousands of years before it could be found out. I wish I had time to deal with all of the scientific statements in the Bible. Maybe you all could research and find them. It would be fun.

Before I go on, I need to make it perfectly clear that the Holy Bible is not a curiosity seekers guide to the mysteries of creation. It simply is not a question and answer book! God’s word is a writing of faith. If God proves to you His existence then He forces you to serve Him. He does not want people to come to Him who feel compelled to enter into a relationship with Him. He wants men and women who will come to Him freely and love Him for who He is, and not because they feel they must or else. He allows you to have enough evidence to choose by faith, and that is all!
However, if the Bible is the word of God, as it obviously claims to be, then it makes sense that an all knowing God would occasionally add insights into His marvelous word that shows this vast knowledge. Again, this is what makes this work such a unique book. No other religious writing has scientific insights like the Holy Scriptures. It stands alone as the only writing to make statements that are regularly found to be true in nature.
Many feel that problems in the medieval times proved the Bible to be unscientific. The problem was not with the scriptures. The errors came when men imposed their own presuppositions and false interpretations to the text and then, due to pride, would not listen to clear biblical teaching.

God Sent said...

@skanksta

Just in case, John's drip feed of wilful lies gains any credence (MD1985?)..archaeopteryx IS NOT A HOAX!

You do realize John did not say that the archaeopteryx is a fraud, but that the archeaoraptor was correct? If we are going off intelligence here then I believe your failing both with facts and logic.

John's comment was:

Remember the birdy (archaeoraptor) from Nat Geo that was exposed as a fraud in 99? (bold added for emphasis)

You can find that the archeaoraptor is a fraud any where you would like online.

instead of cutting and pasting nonsense, why don't you publish your evidence and disprove evolution?

Cutting and pasting? The only thing I cut and pasted was on the origin of science besides the "you know your a fundamental atheists if." Also, your argument against me does not refute anything I have put and through logic thus far I am favored. Now please quit using ad hom, red herrings, and straw men and please refute my post.

God Sent said...

@Nick

lol, hypocrite much? Please study before you speak.

his research team contend that what was really inside the T. rex bone was not collagen from the dinosaur's blood vessels,
I did not refer to the T. Rex within my post, thus your post is a straw man. By the way, I already know the different views on the T. Rex you are referring to.


Secondly, ignorance=/=hypocrisy. I can say something and be wrong. Just because I said to "study before you speak" does not mean I'm a hypocrite so long as I have studied. I never said just because you study you will get the right answer, therefore your first comment is a straw man too.

You're an idiot, I cannot believe any christian would use Galileo as a defense, you should be ashamed of yourself. Galileo was tried and found vehemently suspect of heresy and spent his life under house arrest. You guys are quick to re-accept someone once your view catches up to theirs.

Your statement of me being an idiot is called ad hom when used in a debate and is a logical fallacy. If you would like to get a point across or refute me then please do so logically.

The Roman Catholic Church declared him to be a heretic. Galileo's conflict with the Roman Church was the influence of the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Reformation questioned the RC's authority. You need to keep your refutations within the context of that time. You yet again accuse me of being ignorant, but yet you use try quoting the Roman Catholic Church's condemnation of Galileo against a Protestant.

On another note:

The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.

Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.

Ritchie Annand said...

Creation.com? Seriously? That's your source?

What a pack of deceivers. I can only sit back and wonder whether they know full well that they are deceiving, but that it's somehow "worth it" or "justified" to attack science with falsehoods, or whether they are honestly self-deceived.

For any of them using primary sources, the credibility of self-deceit is very low. A creationist just can't read any of the primary sources and say what they say without knowing what they're leaving out, equivocating or misrepresenting.

Take any of creation.com's claims re: C14 dating (the "Radioactive ‘dating’ in conflict!" page)

So the results in Table 1 are staunchly defended by the laboratories as valid, indicating an ‘age’ of perhaps 44,000–45,500 years for the wood encased in the basalt retrieved from the drill core.

In stark contrast to the ‘age’ of the wood are the potassium-argon (K-AR) ‘ages’ of the basalt (see Table 2).


Surprise, surprise, the K-Ar method gives ages in millions of years!

Given that C-14 dating has an upper limit that depends on its equilibrium with background radiation which makes determinations past 25,000 years fairly shaky, and given that it decays fast enough that it cannot be used to even determine millions of years, I have to ask the question:

Do these assholes honestly believe they have "caught" scientists in some sort of contradiction?

Maybe primary creationist authors like to treat this like debate club or defense lawyers, where winning is paramount and secondary to truth, or maybe they like to be big fish in a smaller pond, but I don't respect anyone who plays loose with the truth like that and certainly am not going to rely on them to discover what the world is really like.

They catch immense numbers of believers up in this net and I can see why.

AronRa's video on "Evolution is not a hoax" details some pretty good backstory on some of your favorite hoaxes.

Nick said...

@God Sent

No, it wasn't ignorance, you were being a hypocrite. You told Skanksta to study before he speaks because he didn't come up with the answer that you did. I was being sarcastic when I said that to you because you obviously didn't study completely and only received your information from a creationist website. The information has been available, but instead of looking it up you took it for granted from your normal sites.

God Sent said...

@Ritchie

Creation.com? Seriously? That's your source?

What a pack of deceivers. I can only sit back and wonder whether they know full well that they are deceiving, but that it's somehow "worth it" or "justified" to attack science with falsehoods, or whether they are honestly self-deceived.

For any of them using primary sources, the credibility of self-deceit is very low. A creationist just can't read any of the primary sources and say what they say without knowing what they're leaving out, equivocating or misrepresenting.


You have not refuted his source, nor can you refute a whole source logically without going through every single topic that was brought up. Your post here is not close to be logical in the least bit. One example is your perpetual use of ad hom, argument against the person. Rather than refuting all the claims made by creation.com you just insult them and try to make yourself look better by reducing their arguments to absurdity which in and of itself is another logical fallacy.

Everyone here who has tried to refute John has not. All of you keep resorting to ad hom and other logical fallacies.

For example, Skanksta said, "Now, please, please, don't profess to be a man of science and state 'evolution isn't true'.

This is called the "No True Scotsman fallacy."

Nick said...

@God Sent

I am arguing overall biblical belief, not different churches or branches. At the time of Galileo the Catholic church was by far the largest christian branch. The vast majority of biblical christians were Catholics, and they are still the majority today.

I am not attacking Protestants or Catholics or any other branch of christianity individually.

There have always been branches of christianity and individual churches that disagree with the rest and there always will be. Are we to ignore the majority because of the minority?

So a few generations after homosexual marriage has been legal, no one will be able to say that christianity was against gay marriage because a few churches actually supported it, hmm, sounds like your argument to me.

The same with slavery, there were churches that defended it and churches that were against it. Same with interracial marriage, Nazi Germany, the Spanish Inquisition, burning witches etc. etc. etc. We now have to ignore all of this because of the other churches that were against them right?

But I do apologize to you for calling you an idiot, you are important on this blog as you help to prove the valuable point that the bible can support any point that you want it to, after science, culture or social acceptance points it out first.

skanksta said...

@ god sent

Apologies - I read quickly and misread archaeoraptor as archaeopteryx.

Archaeoraptor was indeed a hoax...

Nick said...

@God Sent

I just caught this, sorry.

You said:


I did not refer to the T. Rex within my post, thus your post is a straw man. By the way, I already know the different views on the T. Rex you are referring to.

My post is a straw man since you did not mention T-Rex? Geez, you're really grasping at straws here aren't you, as far as I could find the T-Rex find was the only one where they thought they found soft tissue in a fossil. And my other statement was not a straw man either because I was talking directly about your hypocritical comments, not about what I thought you were going to say.

Belittling everyone with all of the fallicies that you can think of doesn't help your case either, for example, your belief in the bible could be considered a Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning fallacy as well, here's how.

(1) The bible says god is real.
(2) The bible is the word of god.
(3) Therefore god is real

So don't use your ad hominem attack on everyone here by trying to appear superior.

You might also want to learn what the fallacies actually mean too since you don't really know what they are, see your straw man accusal above and the definition of a straw man fallacy below:

"One way of making our own arguments stronger is to anticipate and respond in advance to the arguments that an opponent might make. In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down. But just as being able to knock down a straw man, or a scarecrow, isn't very impressive, defeating a watered-down version of your opponents' argument isn't very impressive either."

The straw man you accused me of wasn't a straw man since I directly responded to your post and did not imply anything else, if you can come up with a link about a different find with soft tissue in a fossil I will apologize, however as far as I could find there haven't been any. Prove my innocent ignorance or your intentional ignorance at your whim, silence will prove yours btw.

Ritchie Annand said...

You have not refuted his source, nor can you refute a whole source logically without going through every single topic that was brought up.

The site is no mere chain of independent propositions. I am not painting the site in an ad hominem fashion to say that their arguments are wrong because they are creationists, though I may well hold such a casual opinion. I am painting the site as untrustworthy for many reasons, only one example of which I shared in the space provided.

I'm no stranger to the arguments that they make on creation.com. I have a copy of Sarfati's Refuting Evolution which plays to many of these themes. I went through it three times, the latter times at home checking sources.

I've been over it paragraph by paragraph, and I can summarize it thus: equivocations, half-truths, lies, insinuations, goalpost-moving and unsubstantiated statements meant to sound vaguely plausible. That's merely a summary; I have all my objections marked as dense marginalia in the book.

I am blogging on the topic, albeit slowly, since it takes time to dig up the journals and expired websites that are referenced, on top of being generally exasperating. I'm just about to cover his bird evolution section.

Point to note as to how this relates: Refuting Evolution is linked up front and center in the 'Creation vs Evolution' topic on creation.com. The whole book is there, online.

I have considered in detail enough of their sources to assign a default quality expectation to the site. I have earned that right.

Now feel free to grab what you consider the highest-quality arguments on the site and we will discuss it. Demanding that I either address absolutely everything or that I have failed to make my point would be as unfair as asking you to do the same in reverse.

On another topic: anyone have a good way to gently keep a book open hands-free for reading?

Rob said...

Little late to the party but I'll toss in my two or three cents...

"But these people mock and curse the things they do not understand. Like animals, they do whatever their instincts tell them, and they bring about their own destruction." Jude 1:10

First, mocking and cursing the things they don't understand is how most atheists and agnostics would describe religious people and their behavior.

Secondly, "My side good, your side bad" is a pretty darn basic animal instinct, and it pretty much sums up the whole religious argument. If monkeys could talk, I'm sure they would tell us how their tribe worships the "correct" monkey god while the other tribe worships the "false" monkey god, which is why it's Ok for them to fling poop at the others and also fly airplanes into their trees.

And third, a christian is supposed to act as much like Christ as they can, and what did Christ do? He took up his cross, and allowed people to lead him to his death. He brought about his own destruction.

Rob said...

(Continued...)

You need to worry about putting your own words under the microscope. I don't think people are Christians, or whatever they are because they have malevolent intentions or desire to believe in silly myths, but because they truly believe in them, mainly because they don't actively study and think, logically, about their own beliefs. No one wants to be wrong, which is why it takes a very mature and strong person to face their own beliefs with a critical eye. But that's not what religion encourages...in some cases it implicitly or even explicitly discourages it...take this quote by Nietzsche (the guy said more that just "God is dead")

"Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature — is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned."

What you need to do Liz, if your still reading, is to grow up. Just being honest. There comes a time when a person gives up the belief in Santa Clause, and there comes a time when a person gives up their belief in the Magic-Sky-Man. You can't progress very far into intellectual adulthood if you cling to childish fairy tales and myths to explain the things you don't understand.

Now, I do put my believes under the microscope, and while I am more atheist than not, I call myself an agnostic, because I'm willing to admit that I don't know and that I might be wrong. I may very well end up burning in hell, but while I'm burning I'll have to say to God, "Sorry dude, you didn't give me enough believable evidence, and you didn't make it very easy to believe in you. I mean, with all the dinosaur bones, billions of stars which exist for no apparent reason, the endless contradictions between religions with each of them claiming to be "the" truth while telling wild and crazy stories, the internal confusion, infighting, and discord even between members of the same religion, and allowing so many science books to be written and so many people to come up with logical explanations for your great works...well, it was almost as if you were trying to convince people you didn't exist."

Rob said...

Liz

"I'm very young, and I have a lot to learn..."

I was very young once too, and as the bible says "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child...When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." I was a born again Christian for three years, studied the bible and read everything I could find on Christian living and apologetics, and tried to share my testimony of Jesus with all my friends and family, losing a couple in the process by driving them away. Then I grew up, realized, "No Virginia, their ain't no Santa Clause", and put those childish ways behind me. I began to study history, science, and philosophy. I learned that the universe alone, with or without God, was fascinating and awe inspiring. I realized that to take something I didn't understand and simply toss it up to "Magical-Sky-Man" was a thoughtless, ignorant, immature, and lazy way to think. Not to mention the happiness, peace, and joy that I found when I stopped viewing myself as a horrible, corrupt, piece of crap that didn't deserve anything other than to be tossed aside to endless torture for all eternity, saved only by the arrogant, convoluted, self-righteous mock suicide by that Magic-Sky-Man, just because he was bored, and instead began to view myself as a thinking, moral, individual who earned whatever love, hate, respect, or ill repute that anyone may have for me.

God Sent said...

@Nick

You said, " Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning fallacy as well, here's how.

(1) The bible says god is real.
(2) The bible is the word of god.
(3) Therefore god is real


That is not my reasoning nor why I believe in God or even that the Bible is God's word.

Please do not make assumptions.

So don't use your ad hominem attack on everyone here by trying to appear superior.

I am not trying to appear to be superior. Logic is superior to illogic though.

Are we to ignore the majority because of the minority?

When the majority goes against the text they claim to hold to then yes. Majority does not rule in what is truth and what is not. Also, it is another logical fallacy to claim that, because the majority of people who claim to be Christians believe one way, then there way is that of Christianity. It would more than likely lead to the bandwagon fallacy.

the arguer sets up a wimpy version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down.

The straw man you accused me of wasn't a straw man since I directly responded to your post and did not imply anything else, if you can come up with a link about a different find with soft tissue in a fossil I will apologize,


I made a general claim in which you responded with the research of the T. Rex. Your direct response was not a direct response, but an assumption. You asserted that I was referring to the T. Rex.

"extremely well preserved" and contained "soft-tissue replacement structures and associated organic compounds."

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=4840
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/06/30/rspb.2009.0812.abstract

An interesting article from 2008: http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/solved_500million_year_burgess_shale_soft_tissue_fossil_mystery

the bible can support any point that you want it to, after science, culture or social acceptance points it out first.

The Bible can only support any point if the original message and intent is twisted. I can twist everything you have said here and make your words mean something completely different. Many tried using the Scripture to support slavery and even the RCs who condemned Galileo. The fact of the matter is I am arguing for the original intent of the Bible, not any one person's interpretation or even groups. If the text does not state it then the majority is wrong just like if the facts do not line up with one way of thought then it must be changed no matter if the majority believes it.

It can especially be done with movie segments. Did you know that Mary Poppins is a horror film?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T5_0AGdFic

no one will be able to say that christianity was against gay marriage because a few churches actually supported it,

Christianity is not about the majority nor minority, but is based on what the Bible and Jesus Christ teaches.

Geez, you're really grasping at straws here aren't you,

Not at all. Most of John's arguments and mine have not been refuted, but merely ignored. One for example is science having it's origins in the Judeo-Christian regions only.

@skanksta
np

Nick said...

@God Sent

You said:

"I made a general claim in which you responded with the research of the T. Rex. Your direct response was not a direct response, but an assumption. You asserted that I was referring to the T. Rex."

and yet the quote that you used here:

"Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years..."

http://creationontheweb.info/sensational-dinosaur-blood-report

Came directly from a T-Rex article. Now you're trying to shift articles to make me look bad and render my rebuttal into a logical fallacy somehow. While the link that you provided spoke of mummified skin, two different things, please link to another article that states that red blood cells have been found in a dinosaur fossil before we continue this farther or you are just guilty of ad hominem again.

And I do aplologize for making the assumption on the circular reasoning bit, I really misworded that one and did not mean to attack you like that.

And if the majority can support what they believe with versus from the bible? Such as gay marriage? And when it is socially acceptable will we be able to look back and say christianity was against it or do we have to ignore that as well when they manage to come up with versus that support gay marriage?

And my grasping at straws comment had nothing to do with people refuting your arguments, it had to do you you labeling my arguments as a straw man fallacy when they obviously weren't, you have yet to prove that either one was.

skanksta said...

Can we leave the nutters alone now please?

1) They actually ENJOY it when facts contradict their beliefs - it allows them to prove the strength of their faith in the face of reason.

2) They seek to confuse with their scientific sounding word play (eg. Arcaeoraptor WAS a hoax - so ? Scientists discovered that hoax, not Mohammed or Jesus or whoever they have faith in)

3) Most importantly, it slows the next, hilarious instalment of what the god of jews did next...

Nick said...

@God Sent

"That is not my reasoning nor why I believe in God or even that the Bible is God's word."

"Christianity is not about the majority nor minority, but is based on what the Bible and Jesus Christ teaches."

So, do you care to explain why you are a christian then if it has nothing to do with the bible?

And I still rest on my point that the majority of christians at the time disagreed with Galileo, and he was after all a Catholic. And you are using a Roman Catholic example to prove the point of a Protestant. So we can't do that but you can?

Nick said...

@Skanksta

Yeah, you're right. They leave major holes in their logic anyways.

@God Sent

While I am done discussing this I would still like to see the link requested from my post above. I have only heard of the T-Rex red blood cells and how it turns out that it wasn't really red blood cells at all. I would love to read about the other fossil that contained red blood cells and to see if it really was true, thanks for taking the time to provide this link that you used as evidence against us.

Zerilos said...

After reading the comments here, it's pretty clear that Christians are able to rationalize everything the bible says. When the bible makes god look like an evil tyrant, then it was taken out of context; when the bible makes god look good and loving...well that's precisely what god intended (context or no). Ultimately, they are so closed minded there is no variety of evidence that will cause the to see bible for what it really is.

Zerilos said...

Nick and God Sent,
For more info about the T-Rex situation I suggest you watch the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE&playnext_from=TL&videos=Od5DdfhJZ9U

As you can see, none of what the creationists claim is accurate (shocking I know).