Heyo
Veteran Member
I'm sorry, it wasn't meant as an insult, more a friendly jab. I just couldn't resist, your post was just asking for it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Appearance and DNA mismatch
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.
Matthew 12:36-37.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Yes, i am aware i will have to answer for my action, words and thoughts, thats why i doing my best to fix my own errors first.
People in RF don't try to harm others who believe differently, they may have seen error within our understanding that we our self do not see.
I made the mistake to let my ego get infront of me, and i began to take people's helping words as insult and attack on me.
Just trying to tell you, not everything people in RF try to tell you are insult, they might see that you are about to step very wrong on your path.
And lastly, investigate for your self, don't listen blindly to what your church leaders tell you, Ask questions. And if they kick you out because you ask difficult questions, then you know they are fake and lying to you.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Such a friendly principle. Everyone, please, follow always such principle.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Some things share all theistic religions:
1. God's name is God.
2. God exists.
3. Bible was written by humans, neither extraterrestrials nor demons.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Yes thats true, but only if you compare the genes that they have in common.
So if you ignore all the none coding DNA , Ignore all the genes that humans have a and are absent in chimps, and you ignore the location of a gene, then yes the difference between humans and Chimps is 1-2%
As an analogy that would be like saying that my cellphone and yours are 98% similar only if you consider the apps that we have in common. (perhaps my whatsapp and you are 98% similar because I have a different version of it) you would have to ignore that apps that are unique in my phone and ignore everything in the phone that has nothing to do with apps in order to get that 98%
To me the 98% is misleading, but scientist are not being misleading in their papers, those who “translate” the information for the general public are the ones who over simply the evidence and make it seem as if we were 98% chimps.
In any case, this 98% similarity strongly suggests that we share a common ancestor, but it stognly refutes Darwinism , because even 2% is too much for random mutations and natural selection to account for that difference, it seems obvious that there are more relevant mechanisms besides random mutations and natural selection.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Well to be fair, Richard Dawkins is not a philosopher nor a theologian but he talks about God, the Bible, and he even “refutes” philosophical arguments for the existence of God.
So if Dawkins can make claims about stiff where he is not educated, why can’t Kent Hovid do the same?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
So? I do too.
Theoretically I guess so. But Kent Hovind has proven himself a fraud, a liar, and an uneducated buffoon when it comes to the science of evolution.
There's a difference between waxing philosophical about the existence of god(s) and masquerading as a scientist while pushing lies and misinformation meant to deceive people.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
YOU ARE MISSING THE BIG PICTURE: I am very special.
There are many bad people out there. But Kent is the worst. Worst than Lenin and Che-Gevara. Why? Because Kent saved me from the hell of evolution. I am so crucial to Heaven that it was enough for satan to destroy Kent.
Bathos Logos
Active Member
This is unbelievably strange. You fancy yourself "so crucial to Heaven"? That's what you're saying here. And yet I would be willing to bet large sums of money that you cannot adequately demonstrate the existence of heaven.
If you can demonstrate the existence of heaven to sufficiently convince a court of law that it exists, and on top of that, somehow get a witness from heaven to attest to the fact that you, yourself are "crucial" to heaven, and explain why, and on top of that discover who or what it is that made the decision to take down Kent Hovind specifically because he helped "save" you from evolution, and on top of that, get some kind of testimony or proof of rues on the books in this "heaven" place to demonstrate that you accepting evolution excludes you from being admitted to "heaven". I mean... one would think that if you are so "crucial" to this heaven place that they would overlook the fact that you believed in evolution... but what do I know? I am the type to try and only accept things that make sense and don't fly in the face of rationality - likely making me less than qualified to speak on wacky matters like these.
Dawkins does not refute god he cannot be shure if a god exists.
He is honest, unlike hovind
Oh and he doesn't cheat his taxes and beat his wife
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Sure thing.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I am very suffering and active member of EOC Church. This is so extreme that God loves me very very very strongly.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Same is true with Richard Dawkins
For example in the God delusion there is a chapter where Dawkins misrepresents “Aquinas 5 ways” (or 5 proofs for God) and then he refutes his strawman version of what Aquinas said.
How is that any different from what Kent Hovid has done?
My point is that YEC and New Atheist are pretty much the same thing / They both claim to be sure / they both admit that nothing would change their view / they both talk and “refute” stuff that is beyond their area of expertise / they both avoid the burden proof at all cost / they both misrepresent the other side /they both ignore what experts say / etc.
Ultimately what I am saying is that ether you tolerate and accept both people like Hovid and People like Dawkins or repudiate both, / accepting one and rejecting the other would be hypocritical.
Bathos Logos
Active Member
So no evidence/demonstration then, right? Got it.
leroy
Well-Known Member
This is not about “playing” nor creating controversy, I am simply saying what scientists say (but is not always clear in popular sources)I am not even going to.play
leroy
Well-Known Member
see @SkepticThinker ? that is the point that I tried to made.
Normal and reasonable people reject both people like Hovid and people like Dawkins because we know they don’t have the authority nor the credentials nor the evidence that shows that they are qualified to “disprove” Evolution / philosophical arguments for God respectively.
But internet fanatics like “ Christine “ would support their people no matter what
Strawman, my point is that Dawkins is not qualified to “refute” philosophical arguments for the existence of God. In the same way Hovind is not qualified to “refute” the theory of evolution.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I am genius and LOVE Dr. Hovind, because I am EOC Christian. True one.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Who told you that you are a genius?