Creationists

[Hollie]

He just did not believe in the trinity but he was still a Christian. Anyone who believes in a God do they not believe in creation ?

Jehovah witnesses do not believe in the trinity nor do Jews but believe in YAHWEH. We all believe in the same creator.

What nonsense! The trinity is a foundational element of Christianity.

Although, I do find it a bit presumptuous that you have decided on Newton’s behalf what his personal religious beliefs were.

The Trinity is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible Nice try.

In addition to being wholly ignorant of the science disciplines supporting evolution, you're wholly ignorant of the mythologies surrounding christianity.

 

[CrackedSkull]

Fast Facts on the Trinity

The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
Arianism (4th century)
Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormonism
Unitarianism
Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
It is not mentioned in the Bible
It does not make philosophical sense
It is not compatible with monotheism
It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus
Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative

Doctrine of the Trinity - ReligionFacts

 

[Bill Angel]

Okay. Stick around around to find out if you're right ... since we're real close in finding the life that once lived on Mars. I'd say we're at most 2 to 5 years away. But it was a failure, obviously, as was about 99% of the species on this planet. Whoops.

Grand standing without proof,I see.

Correct. Just possible evidence of it (life on Mars) in combination with a new lander of remarkable ability.

We know frozen water is on Mars, and that at one time liquid water once flowed. So I think we're near to finding conclusive proof that life once existed there.

Curiosity Rover Makes Startling Discovery on Mars
Wishful Thinking On My Part

 

[Hollie]

That is what science is doing even einstein wanted to know how God did it.

Yet another fundie attempt to manufacture a lie.

No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.

Maintaining those low standards of pointless, incoherent creationist screeds.

 

[CrackedSkull]

That is what science is doing even einstein wanted to know how God did it.

Yet another fundie attempt to manufacture a lie.

No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.

No need to lash out like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child, like a petulant child.

Damn if that ain't the POT calling the KETTLE black.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It seems strange that a christian "creationist" would reject the trinity.

Isaac Newton

During his time away from the scientific community, Newton conducted never-published work on alchemy and studied the history of the Bible, concluding that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is a falsehood introduced some four centuries after the time of Christ. In 1675 he published the paper Of Nature's Obvious Laws, which was also challenged by Hooke. By 1680, however, Hooke and Newton were corresponding cordially and at length over such concepts as inertia and centripetal attraction.

He just did not believe in the trinity but he was still a Christian. Anyone who believes in a God do they not believe in creation ?

Jehovah witnesses do not believe in the trinity nor do Jews but believe in YAHWEH. We all believe in the same creator.

What nonsense! The trinity is a foundational element of Christianity.

Although, I do find it a bit presumptuous that you have decided on Newton’s behalf what his personal religious beliefs were.

You have to be a Christian to be a creationist ? Yes the majority of Christians believe in the trinity but that has nothing to do with being a creationist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Explain the gene for tails, in the human genome, then we can move onto the next item.

That's how it works in the refutation game.

It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake.

My first response was a refutation.

The thumper is stumped.

Nope not at all, I just gave you two rebuttals and they both went over your head.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Explain the gene for tails, in the human genome, then we can move onto the next item.

That's how it works in the refutation game.

It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake.

My first response was a refutation.

Guessed wrong. Try again.

Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.

"As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."

Evolution and the Human Tail

 

[Hollie]

He just did not believe in the trinity but he was still a Christian. Anyone who believes in a God do they not believe in creation ?

Jehovah witnesses do not believe in the trinity nor do Jews but believe in YAHWEH. We all believe in the same creator.

What nonsense! The trinity is a foundational element of Christianity.

Although, I do find it a bit presumptuous that you have decided on Newton’s behalf what his personal religious beliefs were.

You have to be a Christian to be a creationist ? Yes the majority of Christians believe in the trinity but that has nothing to do with being a creationist.

Of course, you're wrong. As I have shown you several times previously, it is with virtual exclusivity that creationism (defined by the organized anti-science, anti-evolution agenda), is a Christian fundamentalist endeavor.

As I've already identified for you, anyone can review the "about" section on any of the creationist websites to learn of their goals and attributes. How about a bit of honesty on your part. Identify for us the religious bias held by AIG, the ICR, CRS, etc. Do you want more?

 

[Hollie]

It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake.

My first response was a refutation.

Guessed wrong. Try again.

Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.

"As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."

Evolution and the Human Tail

The ICR.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What nonsense! The trinity is a foundational element of Christianity.

Although, I do find it a bit presumptuous that you have decided on Newton’s behalf what his personal religious beliefs were.

You have to be a Christian to be a creationist ? Yes the majority of Christians believe in the trinity but that has nothing to do with being a creationist.

Of course, you're wrong. As I have shown you several times previously, it is with virtual exclusivity that creationism (defined by the organized anti-science, anti-evolution agenda), is a Christian fundamentalist endeavor.

As I've already identified for you, anyone can review the "about" section on any of the creationist websites to learn of their goals and attributes. How about a bit of honesty on your part. Identify for us the religious bias held by AIG, the ICR, CRS, etc. Do you want more?

Of course most of the creationist movement are Christians,but Isaac Newton is still a Christian even though he rejected the trinity. You are arguing a moot point. Isaac Newton believed in a creator and creation,enough said.

Daws was wrong and so are you Isaac Newton was an Unorthodox Christian.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Guessed wrong. Try again.

Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.

"As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."

Evolution and the Human Tail

The ICR.

Have you read the origional article by Ledley that lead to evolutionist jumping on this belief that humans have genes that produce tails? do you know who Ledley is ? Do your research before you jump in or you come off looking like a fool.

 

[Hollie]

Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.

"As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."

Evolution and the Human Tail

The ICR.

Have you read the origional article by Ledley that lead to evolutionist jumping on this belief that humans have genes that produce tails? do you know who Ledley is ? Do your research before you jump in or you come off looking like a fool.

It seems you're speaking to the fundie choir. You simply cut and pasted what you don't understand, right?

From your link:

Later, Ledley goeson to say that "The modern understanding of teratology [the study of anomalous malformations] and tail formation finds nothing unhuman or reversionaryabout the tail-like structure.…

The child with a tail is strikingnot because the tail is a 'reversion' but because it is not a reversion—because it is entirely consistent with our understanding of ontogeny and phylogeny, which placesusinthe midstof primate evolution. The occurrence of the caudal appendage, as well as the presence of a well-formed embryonic tail in a child, are testimony to the preservationof the structural elementsnecessaryfortail formation in the human genome."

 

[Hollie]

You have to be a Christian to be a creationist ? Yes the majority of Christians believe in the trinity but that has nothing to do with being a creationist.

Of course, you're wrong. As I have shown you several times previously, it is with virtual exclusivity that creationism (defined by the organized anti-science, anti-evolution agenda), is a Christian fundamentalist endeavor.

As I've already identified for you, anyone can review the "about" section on any of the creationist websites to learn of their goals and attributes. How about a bit of honesty on your part. Identify for us the religious bias held by AIG, the ICR, CRS, etc. Do you want more?

Of course most of the creationist movement are Christians,but Isaac Newton is still a Christian even though he rejected the trinity. You are arguing a moot point. Isaac Newton believed in a creator and creation,enough said.

Daws was wrong and so are you Isaac Newton was an Unorthodox Christian.

You neglected to add "because I say so" to your assignment of religion to Newton. What a weighty burden you bear being self-assigned to decide for others what their religious beliefs (if any) actually are.

 

[Koios]

What evolutionists fail to demonstrate is where and how life originated and what it looked like. They skip over the fact that time is not on their side. Dinosaurs were very highly developed creatures. What did they evolve from? How long did that take? Evolutionists have far too many gaps and they fill them with atheistic opinion. But the fact of the matter is, that their process of evolution could not have started at the point of their Big Bang nor when planet earth became it's own sphere. And how many millions of years does it take for bacteria to assume even the form of a worm (which are highly specialized). The real problem is that there is no atheistic logic for why life exists or why it does what it does? And there is also the problem that everything depends on everything else in some way for its survival! Even man is needed so that certain forms of life can cope. So the reality is that the very first form of life needed other forms of life to develope. Even the creation sequence is accomplish in stages. Funny, that even "dumb" uneducated nonscientific nomads would come to such a conclusion and then say God did it --- don't you think? Why didn't the "man who made up Genesis" start with man and then have a god make animals as they were asked for by man? Isn't that how most pagan religions work? I feel atheists will have a lot to answer for one day. They have more than enough to answer for at the present...

Google "prokaryotes." That's where it started, which by the way, required billions of years to come about. No quick deal, to get to anything quite as highly-evolved as a single-cell living organism. Quite a big deal, long in the making. Then the easy part: Cambrian period, where shit gets more complex (more cells) then so on and so on for some billions more years, until REALLY highly-evolved forragers or maybe hunter-gathers looked up, saw shiny stuff in the sky, and thought: Gods? Why hell yes. It's shiny, and in the sky. PROOF!!! Gods a plenty exist. What's that? Only one god? Okay; if you say so.

I think your billions are a bit off. Don't forget starting over at the extinction event that killed the dinosaurs.

No sweat. Good to see you wanting accurate estimates on the age of the planets and universe. It's a start.
And suffice it to say, religious estimates in the mere thousands are way the **** off. Yeah?

 

[Koios]

It is a gene that mutated and not all humans contain this mutated gene for Gods sake.

My first response was a refutation.

Guessed wrong. Try again.

Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.

"As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."

Evolution and the Human Tail

Hardly. Ledley, a geneticist, with both success in resesearch and bio-tech start-ups, indeed concludes -- as nearly all geneticists do -- that the rare case of children born with the beginnings of a tail does indeed show a connection between humans and our more primative ancestors.

But that's then parsed (read: distorted) by ICR, a junk "science" (Creationist) misinformation enterprise, which is not where thinking people go for better insights into the natural world. It's for you folks, who due to your yearning for legitimacy of your faith in the face of so much scientific fact contradicting your religious dogma, who will gobble it up, no matter how convoluted or absurd in its conclusions.

So the real question (rhetorical) is: why all the doubt about creation, from "Believers." Why do you need the pseudo-science horseshit to validate your faith. Why not simply believe and leave it at that. (tip: you have doubts; it's not people who accept the truth of evolution who have doubts.)

 

[Koios]

Guessed wrong. Try again.

Ledley made it clear it was only a growth and not a tail.

"As a matter of fact, even a superficial reading of Ledley's article makes clear that this so-called tail was no tail at all but was nothing more than an anomalous growth coincidentally located in the caudal region."

Evolution and the Human Tail

Hardly. Ledley, a geneticist, with both success in resesearch and bio-tech start-ups, indeed concludes -- as nearly all geneticists do -- that the rare case of children born with the beginnings of a tail does indeed show a connection between humans and our more primative ancestors.

But that's then parsed (read: distorted) by ICR, a junk "science" (Creationist) misinformation enterprise, which is not where thinking people go for better insights into the natural world. It's for you folks, who due to your yearning for legitimacy of your faith in the face of so much scientific fact contradicting your religious dogma, who will gobble it up, no matter how convoluted or absurd in its conclusions.

So the real question (rhetorical) is: why all the doubt about creation, from "Believers." Why do you need the pseudo-science horseshit to validate your faith. Why not simply believe and leave it at that. (tip: you have doubts; it's not people who accept the truth of evolution who have doubts.)

And if it'll help, perhaps I can explain in ways that are easier to grasp:

Let's say I have a hangnail, bite it off, and then spit it out. It's rife with my DNA, within the myriad cells. So why does it not grow into a copy of me? Bear in mind, it has my entire genome. Answer: no mechanisms controlling the genes. They're turned off, and are not being instructed to turn on, in sequence, and for a precise amount of time.

So when traits are weeded out, like a tail, and the genes for the tail lie dormant, for millions of years, then by rare chance, one is turned on due to a highly unusual anomoly in the protenome of certain individuals, it's not in proper sequence nor for the precise amount of time that is required for a complete tail as would have been the norm, millions of years ago. It's like a faulty lightbulb, flickering on before going out, permanently.

So you see, genes, and the immense Human Genome Project, merely scratches the surface. It's like a tool box, without the carpenter, which in the case of living organisims, are proteins ... far more complex than genes, in how they work, and when they work, so that you grow an arm, but only to a point, after which it stops, permanently. (If not, by age 50, your arm would be many times its length.) Thus should it be severed, it will not grow back, unfortunately, and especially no matter how hard you pray to God that it grow back.

But you can pray for a family member or friend with cancer, and have greater success, provided they're also seeking medical treatments and surgery. (as my very, very devout younger brother is, at this very second.) And I believe he will pull through, and that his and his wife's prayers will be answered. (which they will believe, no matter what.)

But they'll be answered by doctors, and not God. Because the world as we've learned is driven by forces in nature, and not divine forces.

But the upside is, we've begun understanding and studying those natural forces, and doctors can intervene in nature, and actually deliver the miracles, which once could only dreamed of, while praying, to something that does not exist.

So thankgod for science, which indeed is improving the lives of humans, and creating the life-saving / -improving miracles we once prayed would become possible.

 

[ima]

If we were created, then why is humankind so dumb? There's only a handful of Nobel Prize winner out of 7 billion, and some of them, like Obama or Al Gore, didn't even merit one.

 

[Koios]

If we were created, then why is humankind so dumb? There's only a handful of Nobel Prize winner out of 7 billion, and some of them, like Obama or Al Gore, didn't even merit one.

The Nobel is not an intellectual dick-measuring award. It's for contributions to certain worthwhile objectives, such as peace, economics, and of course bio-sciences.

Nobel became wealthy doing things that were not necessarily good for the world, and its people. So he tried to leave a legacy that made up for that, by encouraging folks to do good things, which perhaps he did not do. And thus even people with mere above average intelligence, i.e. Obama and Gore, can be forces for great good in the world, which the Nobel prize rewards.

 

[UltimateReality]

Fast Facts on the Trinity

The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."
Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
Arianism (4th century)
Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus
Jehovah's Witnesses
Mormonism
Unitarianism
Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
It is not mentioned in the Bible
It does not make philosophical sense
It is not compatible with monotheism
It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus
Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative

Doctrine of the Trinity - ReligionFacts

I didn't say I didn't believe in it. I said it is not mentioned in the Bible. This is a typical Hawly distraction technique to change the subject.