The true living God

[Manonthestreet]

God doesn't like sin.

He must like it, since he sure created a whole lot of it. On the other hand, maybe we don't really know what sin is.

God created sin....do tell

He created the universe. If there is sin in it, who else would be responsible?

The people who did the sinning perhaps...eh

If I built a clock that didn't keep time, who is to responsible, the clock or me?

You want to blame God cause he didn't make you an unthinking unfeeling machine.....brilliant

 

[alang1216]

If I built a clock that didn't keep time, who is to responsible, the clock or me?

You want to blame God cause he didn't make you an unthinking unfeeling machine.....brilliant

So God's only choices were no thinking or thinking and a world awash with sin? He couldn't come up with a world where my sins didn't impact innocent people?

 

[Manonthestreet]

If I built a clock that didn't keep time, who is to responsible, the clock or me?

You want to blame God cause he didn't make you an unthinking unfeeling machine.....brilliant

So God's only choices were no thinking or thinking and a world awash with sin? He couldn't come up with a world where my sins didn't impact innocent peoplse?

Ponder that question for awhile.....

 

[james bond]

Spoken like a man of faith faced with a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

If I was a non-believer, I would still be smart enough to realize, hey, I'm suppose to be the one with the mountain of evidence. Furthermore, I was suppose to be the one using the scientific method and being able to observe evolution. I believe in Descartes, "I think therefore I am." Maybe there is some truth to what that guy who holds up that sign, "John 3:16 Repent! The End is Near!." I can't even remember what made me doubt evolution, but it had to do with only microevolution is observable. The amino acids do not just form into protein in outer space. Not only this isn't observable; it doesn't happen! It was some article questioning evolution from 2007-2011 time period.

I see your level of discourse is the funny papers.

I was introduced to Jack Chick tracts from a non-believer here. The first one that I read was:

Chick.com: Big Daddy?

The professor says, "DNA proves it." The student says only microevolution is observable and is "Variations within a kind."

I mean if evolution was true, then I'd be the one asking questions of you and you'd be providing the evidence.

However, you are NOT providing the answers such as why did whales grow legs to crawl out of the water and then crawl back into the water to become today's whales?

 

[alang1216]

If I built a clock that didn't keep time, who is to responsible, the clock or me?

You want to blame God cause he didn't make you an unthinking unfeeling machine.....brilliant

So God's only choices were no thinking or thinking and a world awash with sin? He couldn't come up with a world where my sins didn't impact innocent people?

Ponder that question for awhile.....

I did and now I recall that God is fine with punishing the innocent so I guess this is what he really wanted. I have to say I might have taken a different path.

 

[alang1216]

However, you are NOT providing the answers such as why did whales grow legs to crawl out of the water and then crawl back into the water to become today's whales?

The answer is easy, whales did not grow legs to crawl out of the water. Whatever first crawled out of the water was not a whale, it wasn't even a mammal.

 

[james bond]

The answer is easy, whales did not grow legs to crawl out of the water. Whatever first crawled out of the water was not a whale, it wasn't even a mammal.

How did it get there in the first place?

I thought of another question I had around that time to question evolution. What happened to hydrogen?

 

[Hollie]

Spoken like a man of faith faced with a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

If I was a non-believer, I would still be smart enough to realize, hey, I'm suppose to be the one with the mountain of evidence. Furthermore, I was suppose to be the one using the scientific method and being able to observe evolution. I believe in Descartes, "I think therefore I am." Maybe there is some truth to what that guy who holds up that sign, "John 3:16 Repent! The End is Near!." I can't even remember what made me doubt evolution, but it had to do with only microevolution is observable. The amino acids do not just form into protein in outer space. Not only this isn't observable; it doesn't happen! It was some article questioning evolution from 2007-2011 time period.

I see your level of discourse is the funny papers.

I was introduced to Jack Chick tracts from a non-believer here. The first one that I read was:

Chick.com: Big Daddy?

The professor says, "DNA proves it." The student says only microevolution is observable and is "Variations within a kind."

I mean if evolution was true, then I'd be the one asking questions of you and you'd be providing the evidence.

However, you are NOT providing the answers such as why did whales grow legs to crawl out of the water and then crawl back into the water to become today's whales?

Excluding the quack bible colleges, you can find mountains of evidence for biological evolution at any of the libraries within any of 40,000 or so colleges and universitjes in the US.

You embrace quite a conspiracy theory to suggest that all of those colleges and universities are somehow deluded by relevant science.

 

[Hollie]

Spoken like a man of faith faced with a severe case of cognitive dissonance.

If I was a non-believer, I would still be smart enough to realize, hey, I'm suppose to be the one with the mountain of evidence. Furthermore, I was suppose to be the one using the scientific method and being able to observe evolution. I believe in Descartes, "I think therefore I am." Maybe there is some truth to what that guy who holds up that sign, "John 3:16 Repent! The End is Near!." I can't even remember what made me doubt evolution, but it had to do with only microevolution is observable. The amino acids do not just form into protein in outer space. Not only this isn't observable; it doesn't happen! It was some article questioning evolution from 2007-2011 time period.

I see your level of discourse is the funny papers.

I was introduced to Jack Chick tracts from a non-believer here. The first one that I read was:

Chick.com: Big Daddy?

The professor says, "DNA proves it." The student says only microevolution is observable and is "Variations within a kind."

I mean if evolution was true, then I'd be the one asking questions of you and you'd be providing the evidence.

However, you are NOT providing the answers such as why did whales grow legs to crawl out of the water and then crawl back into the water to become today's whales?

You are hoping to further a slogan right from your Christian creation ministries with something they call "micro (or macro), evolutionary change". Science can defend evolution and that fully natural process. Micro and macro preceding the term "evolution" appear on the websites of fundamentalist creation ministries but not so much in science journals.

 

[alang1216]

The answer is easy, whales did not grow legs to crawl out of the water. Whatever first crawled out of the water was not a whale, it wasn't even a mammal.

How did it get there in the first place?

I thought of another question I had around that time to question evolution. What happened to hydrogen?

I don't understand either question. What are you asking?

 

[james bond]

Excluding the quack bible colleges, you can find mountains of evidence for biological evolution at any of the libraries within any of 40,000 or so colleges and universitjes in the US.

You embrace quite a conspiracy theory to suggest that all of those colleges and universities are somehow deluded by relevant science.

It's all hocus pocus and fairy tales. Are you just going to refer to authority and that makes it true? God is the ultimate authority then, so shouldn't we go by him?

You are hoping to further a slogan right from your Christian creation ministries with something they call "micro (or macro), evolutionary change". Science can defend evolution and that fully natural process. Micro and macro preceding the term "evolution" appear on the websites of fundamentalist creation ministries but not so much in science journals.

Microevolution and macroevolution are scientific terms. Christians didn't make it up.

I don't think you know much about science nor religion, so why are you here? Are you a troll? Do I need to get my troll warning out again?

 

[james bond]

The answer is easy, whales did not grow legs to crawl out of the water. Whatever first crawled out of the water was not a whale, it wasn't even a mammal.

How did it get there in the first place?

I thought of another question I had around that time to question evolution. What happened to hydrogen?

I don't understand either question. What are you asking?

You have the mountain of evidence. Why can't you explain briefly in scientific terms how a whale came to be?

Also, I am asking you to explain how chemical evolution came to be?

 

[Hollie]

Excluding the quack bible colleges, you can find mountains of evidence for biological evolution at any of the libraries within any of 40,000 or so colleges and universitjes in the US.

You embrace quite a conspiracy theory to suggest that all of those colleges and universities are somehow deluded by relevant science.

It's all hocus pocus and fairy tales. Are you just going to refer to authority and that makes it true? God is the ultimate authority then, so shouldn't we go by him?

You are hoping to further a slogan right from your Christian creation ministries with something they call "micro (or macro), evolutionary change". Science can defend evolution and that fully natural process. Micro and macro preceding the term "evolution" appear on the websites of fundamentalist creation ministries but not so much in science journals.

Microevolution and macroevolution are scientific terms. Christians didn't make it up.

I don't think you know much about science nor religion, so why are you here? Are you a troll? Do I need to get my troll warning out again?

Why yes, the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are all some grand conspiracy theory.

How does letting biological adaptations work over billiions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it actually doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature and human design (the only intelligent design with which we have unambiguous familiarity) show that they are not at all alike.

 

[Hollie]

The answer is easy, whales did not grow legs to crawl out of the water. Whatever first crawled out of the water was not a whale, it wasn't even a mammal.

How did it get there in the first place?

I thought of another question I had around that time to question evolution. What happened to hydrogen?

I don't understand either question. What are you asking?

You have the mountain of evidence. Why can't you explain briefly in scientific terms how a whale came to be?

Also, I am asking you to explain how chemical evolution came to be?

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

 

[alang1216]

The answer is easy, whales did not grow legs to crawl out of the water. Whatever first crawled out of the water was not a whale, it wasn't even a mammal.

How did it get there in the first place?

I thought of another question I had around that time to question evolution. What happened to hydrogen?

I don't understand either question. What are you asking?

You have the mountain of evidence. Why can't you explain briefly in scientific terms how a whale came to be?

Also, I am asking you to explain how chemical evolution came to be?

The evolution of whales:

Even today we see otters, seals, and manatees filling these niches.

If by chemical evolution you mean abiogenesis, I can offer you no proof, only theories.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God doesn't like sin.

He must like it, since he sure created a whole lot of it. On the other hand, maybe we don't really know what sin is.

God created sin....do tell

He created the universe. If there is sin in it, who else would be responsible?

The people who did the sinning perhaps...eh

"Sinning"? You believe in that nonsense?

 

[james bond]

Excluding the quack bible colleges, you can find mountains of evidence for biological evolution at any of the libraries within any of 40,000 or so colleges and universitjes in the US.

You embrace quite a conspiracy theory to suggest that all of those colleges and universities are somehow deluded by relevant science.

It's all hocus pocus and fairy tales. Are you just going to refer to authority and that makes it true? God is the ultimate authority then, so shouldn't we go by him?

You are hoping to further a slogan right from your Christian creation ministries with something they call "micro (or macro), evolutionary change". Science can defend evolution and that fully natural process. Micro and macro preceding the term "evolution" appear on the websites of fundamentalist creation ministries but not so much in science journals.

Microevolution and macroevolution are scientific terms. Christians didn't make it up.

I don't think you know much about science nor religion, so why are you here? Are you a troll? Do I need to get my troll warning out again?

Why yes, the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc. are all some grand conspiracy theory.

How does letting biological adaptations work over billiions of years equate to supernatural "design"? It doesn't. It is an anthropomorphism, and it actually doesn't apply. Any detailed comparison of the adaptations of nature and human design (the only intelligent design with which we have unambiguous familiarity) show that they are not at all alike.

Why are you changing the subject now? You brought up authoritarianism in that I can find my answers at 40,000 or so colleges and universities. Thus, I countered with God as the ultimate authoritarian. He knows everything even what's in your dirty little heart.

Just because I asked you to explain evolution and you don't even know where to begin does not make me a conspiracy theorist. You claim to have the mountain of evidence. Why don't you start with DNA then. I picked that one out and explained how DNA backs up the Bible.

Well, the billions of years of biological adaptations does not work exactly. Some of it like whales do not fit billions of years. Instead of continuing to criticize God, why don't you debunk him with your mountain of evidence? And let's not get negative emotions which lead to negative thoughts which surface as hostile verbal expression.

What do you have best to counter God and the Bible theory?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If by chemical evolution you mean abiogenesis, I can offer you no proof, only theories.

One doesn't need to offer existential proof of abiogenesis. It is a foregone conclusion.

Where once there was no life, later there was life. What connects these two states of affairs is abiogenesis.

 

[alang1216]

If by chemical evolution you mean abiogenesis, I can offer you no proof, only theories.

One doesn't need to offer existential proof of abiogenesis. It is a foregone conclusion.

Where once there was no life, later there was life. What connects these two states of affairs is abiogenesis.

or aliens

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

or aliens

No, that's not accurate, inasmuch as being an "either/or" proposition. The aliens would still have had to arise via abiogenesis. So abiogensis still connects the two states of affairs.