waitasec
Veteran Member
no, your saying a lot of nothing though
-
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!
The dishonesty of creationists.
- Thread starter tumbleweed41
- Start date
no, your saying a lot of nothing though
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
No he doesn't. He speaks of it being quite the opposite. Why this is so hard for you to understand I don't know.....
Saga (Cosmos)
"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer (although not with a Designer of a more remote and indirect temperament)."
He doesn't say it's evidence of. He said it could be consistent but counters that notion with....
"But this notion is a little disconcerting"
Then with.....
"should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer"
Basically...it could be consistent with a "great designer" but if it is then this supposed designer was incompetent.
It tells us you have no idea what he's talking about.
Then why quote him? It makes you appear desperate.
No they haven't. Just because you don't accept the evidence for it doesn't mean it's wrong.
But for kicks and giggles...present something about vestigial organs that we're supposedly wrong about.
Says you....but let's see if you can present any evidence to refute the claim.
You did quote mine it or you would have quoted the rest of what he said. Instead...your quote ended with a period (.), as if that's all he said but when you actually own the book and look at the reference you discover the statement is followed by a semicolon. As you read beyond that it's perfectly clear what he meant....(The supposed great designer was incompetent). Not only should you be embarrassed...you should be ashamed of yourself.
Alceste
Vagabond
If this is the case, what does the fact that fossil evidence shows that the vast majority of species that She has ever "created" have turned out to be incapable of survival say?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Does anyone else see the irony of Rusra's pathetic attempts to defend his blatant quote mining in a thread titled "The Dishonesty of Creationists"?
Majikthise
nude
Look. I'm not talking about turning you into an atheist.
It would demonstrate to you that Sagan did not in any way suggest that intelligent design is a viable scientific theory and your quote mining is inacurate.
And, you might be interested in seeing how Sagan thinks that nobody can really be an atheist. I thought you might get a kick out of that.
In any case, you ought to take it down a couple of notches.
I have read Genesis, I used to be a christian. I don't know it by heart but I got the gist of it. You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna read them again right now.
So you get to it and do like I asked too and we'll talk.
waitasec
Veteran Member
that's what makes this very entertaining...
McBell
Unbound
Not to mention entertaining...
With every post he demonstrates the title of the thread.
opcorn:Carpenter Rabbi
Member
Yeah, I'm not getting him either.
Majikthise
nude
Look. I'm not talking about turning you into an atheist.
It would demonstrate to you that Sagan did not in any way suggest that intelligent design is a viable scientific theory and your quote mining is inacurate.
And, you might be interested in seeing how Sagan thinks that nobody can really be an atheist. I thought you might get a kick out of that.
In any case, you ought to take it down a couple of notches.
I have read Genesis, I used to be a christian. I don't know it by heart but I got the gist of it. You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna read them again right now.
So you get to it and do like I asked too and we'll talk.
Ok rusra02, I read genesis 1and 2 and it wasn't so bad. In fact I think I might reread it all now as I found it entertaining (I even managed to cook some burgers for the kids in between).
I love sarcasm and use it often but I assure you I am on the level here.
As I read , going back sometimes to fully comprehend what I had read, I came up with some questions I hope you might be able to anwer or give me some insight on.
1. What are ".....the waters which were above the fermament."?
2. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was planted in the garden. Where did God aquire his perception of good and evil if man had not previously exsisted before this time? How did God come about any of the knowledge and experience he had?
3. Is chapter 2 supposed to be a more detailed acount of chapter 1 , or are they in chronological order?
Again, thanks for suggesting the reading , and I realise what I asked of you is a little more involved, so I won't be expecting an answer right away.
Dan
Majikthise
nude
C'mon guys, give him a chance to express his veiws.
Well you are at it get him to explain what the firmament is. You are in for a treat.
Majikthise
nude
fantôme profane;2653078 said:
From what I could tell ,firmament signified uncorporeal turf, so to speak. But I need him to confirm.
We'll see.
if it is trial and error, how come scientists can't create life?
No, I'm talking about evolutionist propaganda falsely claiming that the fossil record supports evolution.
That's right. If you can't deny the facts, attack the person. Classic evolutionist tactics. Ridicule, bully, Expell (if possible). Ben Stein's movie Expelled exposed this blatant hypocrisy.
Simple. You are misrepresenting what the fossil evidence shows. And God is not a "she"
McBell
Unbound
The only thing Ben Stein exposed is his ignorance and willingness to lie.
McBell
Unbound
Really?
How so?
Or are you just giving a cookie cutter reply to seeing the word 'fossil' and not actually reading what was written?
Says who?
You?
You have already been shown to be flat out wrong more times than you have been right.
So based on this fact, why should anyone take your word for anything?
McBell
Unbound
camanintx
Well-Known Member
You still haven't learned that abiogenesis and evolution are two different subjects, have you.
1. The "firmament" as the KJV Bible calls it is called an "expanse" in modern translations or atmosphere where birds later flew "upon the face of the expanse of the heavens". (Genesis 1:20) The Bible says "There were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. (2 Peter 3:5,6) So the waters above the expanse were suspended and created a greenhouse effect on earth. Thus Adam and Eve could walk about without clothes in comfort. These waters above the expanse fell during the Deluge.
2. The Bible speaks about Jehovah as the One perfect in knowledge. (Job 37:16)
As the Source of all life, God's wisdom is beyond our understanding. He is "the One who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all the things in them." (Acts 4:24) So God is the source of all accurate knowledge.
God decides what is good or bad. He does not need man for this. "Who teaches him in the path of justice, or teaches him knowledge, or makes him know the very way of real understanding? Look! The nations are as a drop from a bucket; and as the film of dust on the scales they have been accounted." (Isaiah 40:12-15)
3. Yes, chapter two expands upon the account in chapter one. It is not a separate account.