A Challenge To All Creationists

[omega2xx]

No, that's you. As evidenced by your comments and avoidance of evidence in this thread (and others).
Psychological projection isn't working for you. Please go and learn something. You are embarrassing yourself.

Thanks for confirming you don't have a clue as to what real scientific evidence is.

 

[omega2xx]

You are disputing the definition of a word. Your objection is nonsensical.

You are using an incorrect definition. Which is more nonsensical?

 

[omega2xx]

The definition is right. Speciation means "the formation of new and distinct species" or, "the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other."

That is how it is used by people who do science for a living. You clearly are not one of them.



It's not dishonest at all. Scientists all recognize and use the terms. (You or anyone else can easily find the definition used, if you care to look for it.) Just like all lawyers use specific terms that are understood by those in the field. All brain surgeons use specific terms which are recognized by those trained in their fields. Etc. There's nothing dishonest about it.



Scientific theories are never proven. Germ theory will never be proven. The theory of plate tectonics will never be proven. They will not graduate or change into laws or anything else. Ever. They will remain scientific theories so long as they are supported by the evidence. The theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, hence the reason it's a scientific theory. In fact, it's the only valid and usable scientific theory going that adequately explains the diversity of life on earth.




This is an argument from incredulity. Nothing more.

The DNA evidence is more than enough on it's own to confirm the theory of evolution. Never mind all the evidence gleaned from practically every other field of science.

It would be great if anyone even bothered to try to provide evidence for creationism.

 

[omega2xx]

Oh really? Well tell us, who did? C'mon, let's see you actually do some homework, and then maybe post what you find.

Here, I'll even make it simple for ya: Development of the Christian biblical canon - Wikipedia

Then look under this heading: Development of the New Testament canon

Let me know what ya find there, omega2xx.

I didn't look. I know about the canons of Scripture. The are 2 Christian canons. A Protestant one and a Catholic one. Since I use the Protestant one, the Catholics had nothing to do with my Bible. Besides Bible are translations, and the Bible I use was translated years after either canon. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Who did it is irrelevant. If God did not control what went into the canon,. they are of no spiritual value.

 

[omega2xx]

The only thing that I am seeing "dishonest", is you, omega2xx.

Science do have their own definitions for "theory" and "hypothesis".

It is the same things, if we were talking about mathematics, which have their own terms, their own definitions. Or with business

And if you are going to argue against science in a debate thread, you should at the very least make an effort understanding the science vocabulary...or else you would end up looking like a fool.

But that's too late for you. You are too stubborn to learn something you are unfamiliar with, and you have made quite apparent you are too egotistic to admit when you are wrong.

I don't think heaven exist, so I am very skeptical about resurrection or the afterlife. But if it did exist, I get the funny feeling that you would argue with God or Jesus when he tell you have sinned. You are too stubborn to admit any error on your part.

Thanks for exposing your ignorance of Christianity. Every born again Christian KNOWS they sin and will continue sinning as long as they live. Salvation does not depend on thow good we are, it depends on who what have put our faith in.

 

[gnostic]

I didn't look. I know about the canons of Scripture. The are 2 Christian canons. A Protestant one and a Catholic one. Since I use the Protestant one, the Catholics had nothing to do with my Bible. Besides Bible are translations, and the Bible I use was translated years after either canon. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Who did it is irrelevant. If God did not control what went into the canon,. they are of no spiritual value.

Except that the Protestant canon, still has its origin in the original Catholic canon. It is what it based on.

So you can't really ignore where the Protestant canon come from.

Plus, the canon has nothing to do with god. God didn't write any of the scriptures, let alone organised them.

Only idiots would think god had anything to do what was included and not included in their version of the bible.

 

[gnostic]

Thanks for exposing your ignorance of Christianity. Every born again Christian KNOWS they sin and will continue sinning as long as they live. Salvation does not depend on thow good we are, it depends on who what have put our faith in.

Which would mean that any devout child molester and any cold-blooded mass murderer can reap the rewards of heaven, because they have "faith".

And fanatics will think they can bribe their ways in heaven, by the amount of times they pray, or on how many people they can torture and burn at the stakes for being heretics.

Jesus taught his followers not to judge or persecute others. Just how many Catholics and Protestants have ignored this?

As long as you believe, heaven will be home to the fanatics, psychopaths and sociopaths.

It's no wonder that "faith" don't have any value, real or imaginary.

 

[metis]

I didn't look. I know about the canons of Scripture. The are 2 Christian canons. A Protestant one and a Catholic one. Since I use the Protestant one, the Catholics had nothing to do with my Bible. Besides Bible are translations, and the Bible I use was translated years after either canon. You are comparing apples and oranges.

The difference is only in regards to differing translations, and whether you like it or not, it was the CC that chose the canon that you use.

To say that "the Catholics had nothing to do with [your] Bible" is simply so terribly wrong. But like when discussing the ToE, you never let facts interfere with your opinion.

Who did it is irrelevant. If God did not control what went into the canon,. they are of no spiritual value.

And what evidence can you present for this? It took decades for the CC to select the canon, and many books were highly conjectural in the selection process.

For example, what we call the Apocrypha were so hotly debated that they were set aside because no agreement could be reached. Centuries later, Luther put them in his original Bible written in German.

But back to the first sentence you wrote, namely why didn't you even look as it would have taken literally seconds? Are you that afraid of the truth, regardless as to what it may be? And you do the same thing when discussing the ToE. What are you afraid of?

 

[metis]

Salvation does not depend on thow good we are, it depends on who what have put our faith in.

Read Matthew 25 and the Parable of the Sheep & Goats. Notice that the "goats" believe about Jesus but not in him. Then maybe read the Sermon On the Mount, whereas Jesus demands action from his disciples.

If you only believe about Jesus but not in him, then I would suggest what you believe about your "salvation" may be nothing more than a false hope. An absolutely fantastic and classic book that well covers this is Thomas Kempis' "Imitation of Christ". It was written centuries ago, but he articulates why it is so important to not only believe in Jesus but to also behave Christ-like. This was the value of the "What Would Jesus Do?" (WWJD) movement a few decades ago.

 

[metis]

It's no wonder that "faith" don't have any value, real or imaginary.

I was just reading an article about this yesterday written by a Christian theologian who said that one of the unfortunate trends with so many American Christians is that they make knee-jerk reactions just based on just their "conscience", as if that's going to supply all the moral answers. Luther complained about the same things centuries ago when he said that just because they can maybe read some of what's in the Bible, that even a "milk-maid", to use his word, doesn't believe she needs anything else.

The theologian wasn't at all dissing reading the Bible but said that an ill-informed Christian reading parts of it with no significant theological background may draw some terrible conclusions. And this has been borne out here at RF whereas we have seen some people drawing some absolutely ridiculous conclusions, with some of them acting more like a rabid pit bull than acting like Jesus taught them to act.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks for confirming you don't have a clue as to what real scientific evidence is.

LOL

Keep telling yourself that as you demonstrate your ignorance.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are using an incorrect definition. Which is more nonsensical?

Speciation means that new species are formed. It's the correct definition. It's the definition used by people who do science for a living.

What on earth are you talking about??

 

[Ouroboros]

Those who cant defend what they believe usually are sooner or later. Most last longer than you have.

Have a nice day.

Good luck converting people to your religion. Jesus would be so proud of you.

 

[Ouroboros]

The theologian wasn't at all dissing reading the Bible but said that an ill-informed Christian reading parts of it with no significant theological background may draw some terrible conclusions. And this has been borne out here at RF whereas we have seen some people drawing some absolutely ridiculous conclusions, with some of them acting more like a rabid pit bull than acting like Jesus taught them to act.

So true. How does a Christian fundamentalist creationist foaming at his mouth fighting so hard against evolution, being rude, using dumb logic, misrepresenting the other side, can't understand simple definitions, and are just ignorant about everything think that he/she could convert anyone to his/her belief? Jesus suggested that the meek would win over people, that turning the other cheek, etc, i.e. showing compassion, mild temper, and so on would be the way a Christian should be. Also, in Galatians 5:22, the fruits of the spirit... rare ever have I seen a Christian having those fruits. Only a few really had it during my time as Christian. Most Christians are not fruit, but rather more like stains on Christ, Christ-stains.

 

[metis]

So true. How does a Christian fundamentalist creationist foaming at his mouth fighting so hard against evolution, being rude, using dumb logic, misrepresenting the other side, can't understand simple definitions, and are just ignorant about everything think that he/she could convert anyone to his/her belief? Jesus suggested that the meek would win over people, that turning the other cheek, etc, i.e. showing compassion, mild temper, and so on would be the way a Christian should be. Also, in Galatians 5:22, the fruits of the spirit... rare ever have I seen a Christian having those fruits. Only a few really had it during my time as Christian. Most Christians are not fruit, but rather more like stains on Christ, Christ-stains.

I gotta feeling that many churches today would kick Jesus out if he were to visit them and not identify who he is. I used to belong to one of those churches many decades ago, and I left for reasons of both their having an anti-science position but more importantly being quite overtly racist.

In regards to the latter, on one Sunday a black couple came in and sat in the back of the church and were quiet and respectful. This matter came in front of the church counsel at the next meeting because the ushers needed some direction on what to do. The council decided that they would not ask them to leave but would not go out of their way to make them feel welcome. For my wife and I, that was the last straw, so we stopped going and I began to attend my wife's Catholic church.

After a couple of months, the pastor at the first church came to our place and asked why were weren't attending, and I told him that I was repulsed by the council's action as I felt and felt and still feel that racism is a sin. He agreed, but then I asked him why he doesn't give a sermon on that. He responded by saying that if he did as such, probably about half the congregation would leave. I told him that unless he did as such that I would not return, and the only times we did go there was when my parents passed away. This was in 1968.

 

[Ouroboros]

I gotta feeling that many churches today would kick Jesus out if he were to visit them and not identify who he is. I used to belong to one of those churches many decades ago, and I left for reasons of both their having an anti-science position but more importantly being quite overtly racist.

In regards to the latter, on one Sunday a black couple came in and sat in the back of the church and were quiet and respectful. This matter came in front of the church counsel at the next meeting because the ushers needed some direction on what to do. The council decided that they would not ask them to leave but would not go out of their way to make them feel welcome. For my wife and I, that was the last straw, so we stopped going and I began to attend my wife's Catholic church.

After a couple of months, the pastor at the first church came to our place and asked why were weren't attending, and I told him that I was repulsed by the council's action as I felt and felt and still feel that racism is a sin. He agreed, but then I asked him why he doesn't give a sermon on that. He responded by saying that if he did as such, probably about half the congregation would leave. I told him that unless he did as such that I would not return, and the only times we did go there was when my parents passed away. This was in 1968.

Dang. Well, I didn't have to deal with racism at my church at least. As you might remember, I move from Sweden. We never had any racist churches there when I grew up. Rather the opposite. Our church had an international Bible school and we had students from all over the world. I remember students, visitors, etc from Africa, India, Iran, Iraq, and many more. No one ever had an issue with that.

What we did have though was a huge disdain for every other religion and every other church or even Christian belief that was different than ours. We were holier than thou when it came to our version of the Gospel. We were part of the Word of Faith movement. If a church wasn't as crazy tongue speaking, ranting, extreme anti-evolution and anti-socialistic as us, then they were of Satan. We left the church (for other reasons) a long time ago. Recently I learned that the pastor converted to Catholicism (after all those years ranting against them). Funny how God has so many conflicting messages to his prophets...

 

[metis]

What we did have though was a huge disdain for every other religion and every other church or even Christian belief that was different than ours. We were holier than thou when it came to our version of the Gospel. We were part of the Word of Faith movement. If a church wasn't as crazy tongue speaking, ranting, extreme anti-evolution and anti-socialistic as us, then they were of Satan. We left the church (for other reasons) a long time ago. Recently I learned that the pastor converted to Catholicism (after all those years ranting against them). Funny how God has so many conflicting messages to his prophets...

I heard much the same in the church I grew up in as heard regular anti-Catholic rants from the pulpit. My father was so anti-Catholic that he told me when I was a teenager that he would kick my butt (he used another word) if he ever caught me in a Catholic church. When I told him several years later that I was marrying a Catholic, he was beside himself. But the irony is that he came to accept and very much liked her and actually attended some masses with us.

BTW, he justified going to mass at my wife's church because he said it acted more Protestant than Catholic.

 

[TheSecretAntitheist]

I can say whatever I want. And I can drink whatever I want.

Now, reply to my reply or just simply lump it. But you don't have a reply for my reply, is that what makes you so ill?

Nope. Didn't understand that word salad. English please.

 

[omega2xx]

Except that the Protestant canon, still has its origin in the original Catholic canon. It is what it based on.

It does not. The Protestant scholars examined each book. They accepted some and rejected others.

So you can't really ignore where the Protestant canon come from.

I don't.

Plus, the canon has nothing to do with god. God didn't write any of the scriptures, let alone organised them.

Of course it does. If God did not inspire the scholars which books to include, we can have no conficence in the cannot.

Only idiots would think god had anything to do what was included and not included in their version of the bible.

Only a cave man with a low 2 digit IQ would not think He didn't

 

[omega2xx]

Which would mean that any devout child molester and any cold-blooded mass murderer can reap the rewards of heaven, because they have "faith".

I wish you skeptics would come up iwith something less stupid. If one is truly born again, they will not commit those acts. DUUH

And fanatics will think they can bribe their ways in heaven, by the amount of times they pray, or on how many people they can torture and burn at the stakes for being heretics.

Fanantics might, but Christiasn know better. How silly an idea.

Jesus taught his followers not to judge or persecute others. Just how many Catholics and Protestants have ignored this?

How do you know they were Christians? It you take their word for it, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

As long as you believe, heaven will be home to the fanatics, psychopaths and sociopaths.]

You ignorance of Christianity is showing AGAIN. How silly

It's no wonder that "faith" don't have any value, real or imaginary.

Your ignorance of faith is also showing. It is really amusing to see someone try to discredit something they are 110% ignorant of. They only expose their ignorance and their ignorance exposes their bigotry.