This is from the comments section on Orthodox Muslims vs. Christians. I’m gonna just put the whole thing up here.
Hat tip to tuffasnails for the idea and Jehu for basically hitting it out of the park, nay, hitting it into geosynchronous orbit.
Good going, kids…. 
********************************************************************************
Another ID thread over at LFG all organsiming over themselves because the genius and moral titan Roger Ebert did not like Ben Stein’s film Expelled. So there are only one or two people that even dare to counter the sorority bonding level of comments and observations and snickering remarks made by posters that cannot even see that they have been beaten into group think. But then so many of them are intellectual sado-masochists they beat themselves into group think to win approval and continued posting rights from Charles. Most of them are beating up on a poster named “stretch.” But here was one from a lone free thinker there named Zimriel:
“Fahrenheit 9/11″ is a compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. He comes across as a shallow, inarticulate man, simplistic in speech and inauthentic in manner. If the film is not quite as electrifying as Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine,” that may be because Moore has toned down his usual exuberance and was sobered by attacks on the factual accuracy of elements of “Columbine”; playing with larger stakes, he is more cautious here, and we get an op-ed piece, not a stand-up routine. But he remains one of the most valuable figures on the political landscape, a populist rabble-rouser, humorous and effective; the outrage and incredulity in his film are an exhilarating response to Bush’s determined repetition of the same stubborn sound bites.
–Roger Ebert, arbiter of all that is right and proper in film documentaries.
IOW… watch out for fleas
***********************************************************
So LFG posters ought to know now that they have embraced a raving fat-ass moonbat in their hunt against creationists.
Here is a dialog on the same thread that reveals the pathetic police state of mind Charles has created. And I challenge Charles to deny this fact taking place on his own website.
And yes he has the right to create and control anything there, but the rest of us have the right to point out he is a tyrant that demands all thoughts conform to his regarding Evolution. Charles is showing the same police state mentality of all liberals and secular progressives. So don’t try and pretend you are the NEW MEDIA. You are the same as the old, but you just make less money and reach fewer people than the Dan Rathers of the world.
Posted in: Ebert: Win Ben Stein’s Mind
#9 VegasRick 12/04/2008 6:59:07 pm PST
I wish I had $1 for every ID/Darwin post.
/just sayin’Posted in: Ebert: Win Ben Stein’s Mind
#13 Charles 12/04/2008 7:00:07 pm PSTre: #9 VegasRick
I wish I had $1 for every ID/Darwin post.
/just sayin’Yeah. You’d get about $18 every 60 days.
Don’t spend it all in one place.There is Charles just a humping it to suppress any dissent, not 5 posts later he is crunching this little poster, who as you can see in his response was “just kidding.”
Posted in: Ebert: Win Ben Stein’s Mind
#25 VegasRick
12/04/2008 7:02:55 pm PSTre: #13 Charles
Yeah. You’d get about $18 every 60 days.
Don’t spend it all in one place.
I did say post and not thread. And I was alluding (as a joke) to the # of posts these kind of threads usually generate. And I was just kidding.
Posted in: Ebert: Win Ben Stein’s Mind
#62 VegasRick 12/04/2008 7:13:02 pm PST
re: #25 VegasRickI did say post and not thread. And I was alluding (as a joke) to the # of posts these kind of threads usually generate. And I was just kidding.
I guess I am not going to get any response after gettin down dinged for my comment. See you all later. No harm, no foul, hopefully
************************************************************************
Look at the kowtowing and ring kissing this poster must perform to avoid the banning stick. Charles you have screwed up a good thing. You deserve the posters you have now, bunch of cowards and ass-kissers, and crippled thinkers. Yeah, you really showed all those that believe in creation (and many among us were not young earthers, or followers of DI but you banned anyway) But in all you did you turned your website into the Potemkin village of the blog world
***************************************************************************
Comments?
Tags: Ben Stein, Roger Ebert, truthers
Dude! Charles is SO gonna Ban you!!!!!
Oh… wait. *grins*
ooooooooh, I’m so scared! bwahaha
From candy mountain:
1294 Charles 12/05/08 4:02:20 pm reply quote 4
It’s really a mystery why so many of the creationists who show up in these threads pretend not to be creationists. It speaks to the level of delusion and self-deception that’s going on.
And then as if on cue.
1295 Sharmuta 12/05/08 4:03:35 pm reply quote 3
re: #1292 poof
Sorry- I have better things to do with my time than play this game again. If you really want to know more about evolution, you could take the time to learn about it, but I suspect you’re not interested in looking into the facts. Because if you looked at the facts, you might have an answer as to why your Church supports it.
Sharmuta states for me what has been the crux of this issue at LGF.
What she/he/it and/or Charles is really claiming:
if you (the creationist or skeptic of Darwinian evolution) would only read this or that then you would “believe” just like we do!
If your conclusion is different from ours well then you are stupid.
That is about as egocentric as a person can get.
The folks at LGF are not what I would consider “smart” or even somewhat smart, so Chucks opinion means nothing really, the guy is not even qualified to teach “pre-school”, so take his opinion for what’s its worth.
Charles has more interest in trashing believers then learning any different positions.
Ironically I bet not one of the LGF minions has ever troubled themselves to read a different opinion that didn’t come from “talkorigins” which is the LGF wholly grail for evolution and another irony is Charles never read the fine print at the wholly grail “talkorigins” and how it is not peer reviewed.
But they never let that get in the way of trashing any creation article because it was not peer reviewed, its funny but sad that people are that stupid and only because they want Charles to like them!
but bar, it is full of extra truthiness, therefore no peer review is required!
It is, by virtue of spinning a tale in which there is no God, clearly the correct way to go!
If only we could force those silly christians and other religious folk into believing our way.
But don’t think it is a religion, it is just the atheists’ take on. . .. the origin of man, the existance of a creator and the relationship between the two. NOTHING like a religion, which discusses the origin of man, the existance of a creator and the relationship between teh two.
….
heh.
I may be a coward (and I admit it!), but I’m not an a$$kisser.
He’s banned most of us who could argue with the echoists and those that are left that could are ass kissers.
test
well, apparently I was banned for being a ‘whiner’ when I stood my ground as one of those stupid creationists.
I guess I just haven’t ‘read enough’ to be truly enlightened.
Isn’t thre something in the bible about mankind leaning on its own understanding and leading itself into ruin? heh.
“the genius and moral titan Roger Ebert did not like Ben Stein’s film Expelled.”
I wasn’t aware that film critic Ebert was a scientist.
Many supporters of Darwinsm -some at LGF included- behave as though one must be “uber”-qualified, (say, one must actually work as a scientist or hold a science degree) before they will even consider any of your criticisms against (macro) Evolution.
Yet they will cheer and applaud the views of someone who has no scientific background who also slams a film that is critical of Darwinism?
Regarding this quote by Sharmuta that someone pasted in above:
“If you really want to know more about evolution, you could take the time to learn about it, but I suspect you’re not interested in looking into the facts.”
Evolution was covered in some of my science courses when I was a kid. I’ve no interest in pursing that topic any further. It’s boring, and it’s a waste of time:
I’ve read exposes and criticisms of the naturalistic, anti-Superantural biases held by those who believe in Darwinism, which is enough to demonstrate that Darwnism itself is bogus.
If your world view is messed up to start out with (i.e., from the very out-set you reject even the possibility of the super natural, the existence of a deity, etc.), your thinking is already flawed, so your conclusions (about science or whatever else) will be flawed as well.
But of course the biggest problem I have with the ID/ Creationism/ Darwin topic at LGF is how it is handled by Killgore Trout, Charles Johnson, and other Darwnists at LGF:
Anyone who either accepts Creationism/ID or who rejects Darwinism (for not everyone who rejects Darwinism is a Christian, or is an ID advocate, a Creationist, or a Young Earther) is treated with contempt and rudeness.
The condescending attitude from Darwinists towards anti-Darwinists at LGF is unbearable there too.
This is funny!
I was listening to Ben Stein on the Michael Medved show, this afternoon, and he so thoroughly trashed the “neo-darwinists,” as he calls them. He claims the neo-dars don’t even know that Dar himself, never once addressed the evolution of man, only certain species.
If anyone subscribes to his show, it is an excellent interview.
That those so militantly opposed to religious beliefs are equally opposed to ID isn’t surprising. Creationist theory has been banned from the classroom, because some courts have ruled it requires a “supernatural creator” to be valid, and is thus religious.
ID is presented as a bona fide scientific theory because it makes its claims using the scientific method.
The atheists are so adamantly opposed to ID because it doesn’t do enough to refute the belief that there is a God. ID is distinct from creationism because it does not require a “supernatural creator” and instead only refers to intelligent causes. That sounds too much like a belief, for the opponents of ID.
Re #10 no2 liberals said,
ID is distinct from creationism because it does not require a “supernatural creator”
I know that, and you know that, but I notice that folks at LGF (and Darwinists elsewhere) keep confusing the two. They make no distinctions between Creationism and ID, even though they are NOT the same thing.
Creationists are upset that ID proponents because the ID crowd does not say who or what designed life, where-as Creationists will tell you point blank they believe the designer is the God of the Bible.
It’s dishonest -and it’s sort of a straw man argument- for Darwinists to interchange the terms “Creationism” and “ID” as though they’re the same thing, or as though all members of both groups believe the same things.
You know what absolutely drives me insane about Sharmuta? (not to mention the fact she doesn’t have a life and feels the need to defend Chuck from his “attackers”)…she always leans back on the lame old argument being an evolutionist doesn’t necessarily preclude one from believing in G-d. She ALWAYS uses that statement in the evolution/ID threads…BUT…sure one could say that in defense of evolution to appear to still believe in a higher power, but there is BIG leap between believing in a “higher power”, and believing in Jesus Christ. To believe in the Lord of the Bible is to subscribe to His tenant that we are created in HIS image…not in an evolving sludge-to-ape. You’ll notice she NEVER says “His Name”…she won’t utter it. None of them do. In fact, when someone brings his Holy Name up, many, including she and Chuck get VERY defensive and go into attack mode. A brave soul named Stretch and went in and basically “peacefully demonstrated” and was attacked viciously. Chuck was quick to retaliate by saying “It’s too late for him to be saved” etc. and in my opinion, reeeeally showed his true colors, or shall I say “darkness”. The more he is provoked, the more he reveals himself to be the Christian hater he is, and his minions fall in line. The fact that he held a UBER LIBERAL moonbat like Ebert’s opinion with such high regard demonstrates where his loyalties lie. That is the same Ebert that lavishly praised 9-11 Truther’s Movie Fahrenheit 911 just 4 years ago. The so-called “conservative Charles Johnson” wouldn’t give that fool the time of day, let alone any credibility on commentary, but the MINUTE Ebert attacked Creationism, well, his loyalties certainly changed and basically sold conservatism and President Bush’s good name/legacy right down the river. This begs the question….where do Charles Johnson’s loyalties lie since they seem to be ever-changing? Who “IS” he now?? Where does he REALLY stand? He sure seems to be veering back to hard left.
and many among us were not young earthers
Watching Chuck mock young earthers is rather funny, sometimes nothing shows a lack of information more than mocking.
At least us anti-science types have heard about the theory of relativity and we understand what it means.
#13, bar:
I am a “young earther” myself, but I never argued on behalf of that view.
Instead of arguing for a literal understanding of the six day creation story, I kept emphasizing that teachers and professors should be permitted to tell their students the problems with and the holes in the Macro Evolution theory, and they should be allowed to do so without the fear of reprisal.
-But even that was met with hostility or derision at LGF (as it is in the wider world).
I am not -and was not- interested in defending a young earth view at LGF (or anywhere else), nor am I necessarily in support of it being taught at public schools.
My only arguments about it were ‘let the shortcomings of Darwinism be taught freely,’ and exposing the world views held by Darwinists to show that they’re not as objective or as ’scientific’ as they like to make themselves out to be.
There are some Christians who believe in “theistic evolution.” They believe that the days in Genesis each represent millions of years, not literal 24 hour periods. I don’t buy into that myself, but I don’t argue it with other believers.
So Ebert is allegedly a troofer (an assertion for which no evidence is presented and which not even the rest of the wingnutosphere seems to be claiming) and a moonbat (meaning somewhere to the left of Francisco Franco). That must make every word he says false. </sarcasm>
#15 Sura 109,
no not that everything he says is false, but he’s no scientist either, so according to most Darwinists, his opinion about anything having to do with Darwinism is wrong, his view is not worth reading, etc. – that is the standard many Darwinists apply to critics of Darwinism (see my post above, #9).
New Details Emerge in Matthew Shepard Murder
# 14, rainydayweather
I agree, I never got to argue a young earth theory, I was banned before I got the chance.
I really only wanted to argue that position when I saw Darwin Johnson mocking his own members that support a young earth view. And then I am not interested in anything other then mocking Queeg and making him look as stupid as he really is.
I highly doubt any of us fit into any neat categories, whether you support evolution or not.
There are parts of ID that I find very reasonable and parts of creation, even young earth creation that I find appealing, I don’t fit into just one pigeonhole.
rainydayweather..
What is your take on this verse by Jesus Christ”…
2Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
I was just curious because I too am a Creationist flat out, and I believe the Earth is/was created as is (having the appearance of “age” to sustain life), but could it be that G-d created the world in 7 thousand year increments and the 7 thousand year “days” were representive of God’s creation period, hence “our days” (24 hour periods) are merely “representive” of the time G-d took to create the heavens and the earth? I know you are a Christian and I would really love to open up this respectable dialog with another fellow Christian (YOU!!:)
15.
Surah,
Pretty much.
18. Forgive me…PETER made that statement..not Jesus.
Another Creationists thread up on LFG. This time it is about the Cincinatti zoo got slapped down for thinking of putting an exhibit up by some creationists group. Now as far as young earthers, or thesitic evolution. I subscribe to neither view, and indeed it is not nescessary in defense of the faith or the Genisis account. Long before Darwin early church fathers and Rabbis knew Genesis 1:1 — Genesis 1:2 presentied a GAP in time. A huge gap. First God created the heavens and earth (Big Bang).
Then “The earth was formless and void (The Hebrew used here means the earth had undergone a catastrophic Divine judgment and was waiting for restoration). The Bible is not interested in telling us about the time after the earth was formed, but before Adam. Were there other creations, races of men that fell in sin and God judged? Some Biblical Scholars think so: Pember (Earth’s Earliest Ages). Never the less some of the Geneis account may be allegory, maybe it is direct restorative work done in literally 6 days.
There is a very good work that I cannot remember that you can look at the ages of cosmic time and if you take into account the expansion of the universe it works out to six days to fit the pattern of Genisis. This writer was dealing with relativity theory and it was a totally unexpected take on all of this.
But for Christians, and this is where I got banned from LGF as the poster Kepler Sings (I was banned as Jehu earlier because I defended the poster America Infidel from despicable name calling and treatment on LGF during the Reaganite blow-up.
If you go to my site my latest paper is on Evolution (It is just part I). That answers a lot of questions, and debunks just about anything the scientific jesters on LGF say. And I use REAL agnostic and atheistic scientist to do the debunking. Cosmologists especially are FORCED now to admit that God created this universe, like it or not. Within a few decades biologists will also be forced, even through gritted teeth to admit God created life. Remember one of the things that happens on the earth at the return of the Lord is that every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord (and creator!)
The difference is some will bow with worship in their hearts, and some will bow with hatred. I know how I will bow, as I already do bow and love God and worship Him because He is the creator, and He is beautiful. Anyone that looks at a mountain forest, or endless seas, or the beauty on this earth and out in the universe and is not struck with awe, is already dead.
I posted links and arguments as Kepler Sings, and the response was to be roundly cursed, called an idiot, reviled etc. These people are intellectual punks, and spiritual dwarfs. Their highest level of argument is the SNEER.
Also a very good read to get some perspective about the GAP theory and a lot of very good debunking of evolution is by the Scholar and late Professor at the University of Toronto Arthur C. Custance Read His doorway paper on evolution versus creation. Also his work on Noah’s 3 sons is a mind blower.
I have my belief and my faith.
I allow others, theirs.
I’m just always amazed, and often amused, at the vehemence, that those who don’t share my beliefs, is so intense, and disrespectful.
And since I haven’t visited his green snot-wad blog in years, wouldn’t even be aware of his position on the matter, except for reading it here.
There was a time, apparently years ago, that lgf was much more than a clap-trap blog, full of people who were required to think the same.
So how long before the standard greeting at lgf is Zeig Heil?
Or is it Chucky is the one true God of his shrinking world?
As for Ebert, since when is his opinion valid, even on films.
He actually gave The Cook, the Thief, his Wife & her Lover, a thumbs up; perhaps the most grotesque film I have ever seen…with the exception of Eraserhead.
Jehu, while we may have been in opposing camps with AI and reaganite, we are not on this matter.
Science Is God’s Language.
Missed my point. This is why evolutionary theory is NOT compatible with Christian faith, Pope OK’ing such nonsense or not. Christianity has a starting doctrine and that is the doctrine of orginal sin. So that if sin came into the world from one man (Adam) it can be removed by one man (Christ). It is impossible to fit any kind of evolution into Christianity without throwing out this doctrine. And in truth, if there is no orginal sin, then there is no need of Christ, or Christ would have to die for each and every individual because we came from various groups of monkeys without an orginal source. So my faith trumps any so called science, and my faith and reason informs me that eventually all truth lines up, science is to serve my faith not the other way around. I am confident that when enough evidence is collected it will be seen and known by DNA and other stuff yet to be discovered that we descended from a single set of parents. Already they know that there was one woman where we received our DNA in the organelles inside the cell called mitochondria Was there an Eve?
I think they have the timelines wrong, but at least the evidence is coming in slowly and I think that evidence will pick up speed that there was an Adam and Eve, and peculiarly it will show that they lived about the time that a study of Genesis predicts, somewhere around 6 or 7 thousand years ago. And NO asshat LFG’s that are lurking, dinosaurs were as dead then as your ideas are now!
no2liberals
Yeah don’t remember all the players in the Reaganite thing. Not that I was fond of all of AI’s stuff. But when Nam Grunt and Rayra started their invective and stuff, it was too over the top for me. But that stuff was not very important, this is, as it is the de-facto lie and cultural belief system of western civilization, it is killing us and killing our science, making it a dead and deadly thing…making all men believe competiton with one another is the natural default state. When as human beings we are to overcome that spirit of futility.
By the way the worst movie I ever saw was Naked Lunch. Crazy homoerotic crap. I walked out. Some sort of story about a writer, but his typewriter kept turning into a giant rectum or something like that…horrible! Hollywood is filled with perverse sick people.
Weaklings like Darwin Johnson and Sura are scared to death of ID, or whatever anyone wants to call evolution as nothing but speculation and bad science. That’s why they have to mock, dissent, and attempt to silence. They are no different than these pointy-headed loons sitting in the classrooms, calling themselves “professors.”
The misdirected anger is completely transparent to me because it has nothing to do with science, academia, and how life might have “evolved”, and everything about the ramifications of trying their damndest to deny the most obvious fact. That is, they can not bring themselves to admit that something beyond our science, our comprehension created life, because if they do, then than the admission of a Creator says there are absolutes. And when there are absolutes, man doesn’t decide what is right and what is wrong. These neo-pagan types fight like rabid dogs because the entire premise of why we are really here hangs in the balance. For them to admit there is a Creator is an admission of guilt that they could be entirely wrong in their opinion about anything else of importance.
This is one subject I am so confident that Darwin Johnson and the sissies like Sura wrong, I’m willing to just point fingers and laugh at their ignorance and weakness.
Can anybody tell me, being that I’ve been away from LGF for more than a year and refused to go there, exactly what are the scientific qualifications of the “experts” at LGF concerning natural selection?
I understand having a difference of opinion about the formations of life. I understand coming to different conclusions, even about small aspects of Genesis (fact or allegory?). I don’t understand the problem with debating the information available. But what I don’t know is, what makes these Sharmuta and Killgore types qualified to cast judgment about who is right in these very complex matters? What makes Sharmuta eminently qualified to cast judgment?
Is Sharmuta a molecular biologist or biochemist? A physicist? A physical chemist? A mathematician? Or does she read the dogma and just assume because Darwin Johnson says it, therefore it is? I could ask that same question about Darwin Johnson. What do these people really know about the sciences to formulate their conclusions besides someone else’s opinion and gossip?
For instance, I can go read Jehu’s stuff he has posted on his blog and say, yeah this guy probably has received the same basic schooling I have, and has come to some of the same conclusions for the most part. This is how I learned it too.
Does Charles ever post any literature about scientific fact, or the latest studies like the Eve Project where someone can read real research and make up their mind? All I ever hear about is he’s posted another article courtesy of some religious bigot like Killgore, and they just run with it as ammunition to beat their opponents up, really never even documenting why they find the difference so foolish; a bunch of scientists slamming ‘Creationists’ as goobers. There is never any in-depth discussion that I have witnessed. I can’t even get my brilliant opponents to define what a Creationist is. If they can’t answer some simple question like that, why should I believe they know a damn thing about cell biology?
Tex,
I have a software engineering and analysis background. Worked in Medical Research at the Univ of Iowa, and helped found farming techniques using GPS mapping of fields to vary seed density planting and use of fertilizers. I have self-studied about evolution and probably know more than the LFG posters, unless they have some biologists posting there, or better some paleo-biologists. But they are stupid people, educated beyond their actual level of intelligence.
Mostly it is a low level hi-fiving sort of psuedo-science understanding. If you want to read someone that is actually as brilliant as Killgore, Sharmuta, and Charles thinks they are try Onecosmos.blogspot.com. Gahdad Bob’s site. Now there are some smart people, but without the one dimensional materialist mindset of LGF. Bob is very funny and the most brilliant writer I have seen on the internet. He calls Charles Captian Queeg, after the insanity of the Character in Moby Dick, who hated God, as Moby Dick represented God in the novel. Remember Queeq destroys his ship trying to kill the beast. That is the sort of madness of the posters on LFG, they must seek out and destroy some mythical beast they don’t believe in, but hate anyway. And in this quest Charles is destroying his website. To me it is a watered-down KOS site now, hateful in their arrogant demand that everyone utter the same Shiboleths.
Re: #18
What you said.
I don’t find myself blogging much anymore.
Maybe the primary reason is that this ID/Creationism thing has become numbingly boring to the point of tears and then indifference.
I see it as a milquetoast proxy debate for “I believe in God” or “I don’t believe in God.”
Yeah, if we had that argument, there would be fireworks. But at least no proxyism. Either say what we mean or move on.
But this ID thing has spread across the blogosphere like a virus and has almost completely killed my interest in blogging.
It’s so damn boring.
Folks, you are not going to change anyone’s opinion on it. To continue to blog on it is like the wind upon the open sea – an evanescent force with leaves no sign when it has gone.
Repeat – by blogging, you will change NO ONE’S OPINION.
See youse later.
I wonder if the doctrinaire Darwinists at LGF could explain for us how evolutionary theory can account for the “simple” act of honey bees making honey.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012019.html
#26-Jehu
I agree.
The lack of respect, and the vicious attacks against believers, reveals the desperate need by non-believers, to dispel any indicators of God’s existence.
It’s also a denial of all the wonderful achievements that have come from our Judeao-Christian civilization.
And for alleged warriors against jihad, failing to recognize Christianity has been the greatest bulwark against islam’s spread, those who wish to see our beliefs removed, are in effect, aiding in the spread of islam.
Because of my belief and faith, and how it found me, or I it, it is unbreakable, unshakable, and irreplaceable.
Those who don’t believe in God, will find something else to believe in, and for the purposes of this thread, that would include a pony-tailed bicyclist, with a negative outlook.
LOL no2liberals. “If one does not believe in G-d they will believe in anything” is a great line and true in my experience. I am still in my late 20’s so I might be proven wrong but I have not so far.
If you truly believe in yourself, what is the need to believe in any thing else
avideditor,
I’ve got a few years on you.
I went through many phases, dabbled with many things, and have seen others do the same. I believe man is hard wired to try and understand what is the source of all life and the wonders we find.
I had my God Moment, and have only found evidence to reinforce my belief, since my mid twenties.
One question remains, that non-believers never seem to want to address is, what of the soul?
Here is St. Anselm’s death bed statement:
How prescient.
Shiva, I’m not certain how to address your comment.
Believing in one’s self, and believing in a creator, are not the same thing.
When I see scenes like this, I don’t think of myself.
Now…how did that double post happen?
/mysterious
Hey Shiva if you can post what you did on your blog PIG to Islam with out believing in a G-d then more power to you. BTW your blog is still readable in my google reader. I am just giving you the heads up. I think one can read it with an rss reader if you give out the rss feed.
no2librals I have traveled a bunch in Europe due to my old job. I would tell you more but I have already received hundreds of death threats to avideditor for insulting the jihadis, I want to keep my real identity hindden on line from them. When I was younger I was a crazy Anarchist leftist. Then I figured the left wants me dead. After waking up I explored a lot of different political philosophies. I like what others call modern conservatism the best. Mark Levin is the man IMHO. Believe what you want I think it is cool as long as you do not want to kill me. But I am a Jew.
I will delete that double post for you, No2liberals.
“What is your take on this verse by Jesus Christ”…
2Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
I was just curious because I too am a Creationist flat out, and I believe the Earth is/was created as is (having the appearance of “age” to sustain life), but could it be that G-d created the world in 7 thousand year increments and the 7 thousand year “days” were representive of God’s creation period, hence “our days” (24 hour periods) are merely “representive” of the time G-d took to create the heavens and the earth? I know you are a Christian and I would really love to open up this respectable dialog with another fellow Christian (YOU!!:)”
The age – day theory creates more contradictions in scripture and snows balls into a huge mess by the time it ends up rolling through the bible. When “that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”, the topic was “where is the promise of His coming?”, in that “since our fathers died, all things have continued since the beginning of creation”…and then so interestingly states they are “willingly ignorant” of the great flood of Noah that the world perished [except for Noah and his family of course]. Hardly a verse that can be used for the day – age theory, the presentation actually seems to be speaking against things just continuing on and on for long periods of time without supernatural intervention. The statement is more directed at that time does not influence God’s decisions when judgment should come, but that He will give time for humanity to repent, but will none the less judgment will come & He is not slack of concerning the fulfillment of them. In Matthew 19:4 Jesus stated that Adam & Eve were “created at the beginning”, which most certainly lends credence that Jesus firmly believed in the lineage of Adam paralleled the the six days of Genesis.
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Exodus 20:4
This verse is definitive in stating all things were created, including man, in six days. This shuts out the day age completely without question. Why? Because Adam’s exact age of his life span is given in scripture…and he wasn’t millions of years old. To claim the first five days were ages, then it changes, still creates the same contradiction.
before I have stated I have found many examples of literal physical facts that support a young earth. This one is totally irrefutable and has no other explanation that the bedrock around the planet took less than 3 minutes to be formed & was never molten rock.
http://www.halos.com/
An Overview
Etched within Earth’s foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.
The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.
A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly “effervescing” specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.
An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly “froze” into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.
This link explains it in great detail by a real scientist if anyone wants to read farther.
But one thing on this whole topic is I’m not dogmatic to the point where I require friends or anybody I talk to, to believe as a young earth creationist, and I certainly do not attack old earth darwinist held views in the fashion LGF does against YECs. I am not so insecure in my beliefs that it would require me to lash out and belittle others who do not share mine, in fact IMO characteristics of strong faith in something manifests in ways has a patient, quiet, relaxed attitude…in that truth is not flippant & so desperate to be expressed and forced down people’s throats. Another words someone disagreeing & insulting me over my beliefs doesn’t offend me to the point where I need to return the insult in like manner.
Charles Johnson obviously is insecure and feels the need to lash out at those who disagree with him. That is not the signs of a good leader and what is turning LGF into such a mess.
# 21, Jehu ( A Banned One)
There is a very good work that I cannot remember that you can look at the ages of cosmic time and if you take into account the expansion of the universe it works out to six days to fit the pattern of Genisis. This writer was dealing with relativity theory and it was a totally unexpected take on all of this.
Dr Gerald Schroeder maybe?
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html
Nice web site you have Jehu.
science is to serve my faith not the other way around
Indeed.
I read an article about mitochondria Eve, and the dating of her or I think what they call the “molecular clock”. That clock is dated using evolutionary assumptions about timing, a somewhat recent review of that using new timing data has her living about 6,000 years ago. Whoops, how did that happen?
no2liberals / Avideditor
Just now I am in an internet cafe so cant write much now, but when I get home I will answer you both.
Avideditor, you seem a decent enough guy so being a jew is irrelevant to me.
I took a peek at Logical General Fallacies, also known as LGF and the latest “creationist” thread
1 zombie 12/05/08 9:10:12 pm reply quote 6
The words “Creationism” and “museum” shouldn’t be in the same sentence.
And here this whole time I thought a “museum” was just a place to display stuff, like a “wax museum” or an “art museum” or my personal favorite a “car museum”.
Apparently now “museum” is only a place to display evolutionary bunkum.
Maybe Zombie should just stick to taking homosexual porno pictures, or learn how to use a dictionary.
lol Bar on your comment about zombie
Avideditor, please don’t use that qualifier.
You are my bruh.
I would gladly take up arms and fight in the defense of Israel, and even whacked-out liberal Jews.
In fact, I have a Masada ball cap, and understand “never again.” It’s a pity more Jews in the West don’t.
Yes, I am a Christian. I don’t know what that term means to some, but I am of the variety that wishes no harm to anyone, and will not remain silent when others do harm.
God has a big herd of sheep.
I am one of his Sheepdogs.
That is a great link no2liberals about the sheep, the sheep dogs, and the wolves. I just pointed out that I am a Jew so I can not relate to your comment where you quoted Anselm. Do not worry I am proud or my religion and my heritage. Give the liberal jews some time I think they will wake up to the fact the left and the jihadis are wolves that want them dead. Well I did. I think for the most part people at LGF2 are good people that do not want to kill Jews. I personally believe the theory of evolution works with the torah but I think Charles crossed the line and became anti-G-d. Charles also crossed the line for me when he started calling everybody Nazis, while he banned anyone that did not echo him. Have fun debating evolution or Creationism.I have no bone in that debate. I think Jihadis are evil and want to destroy western civilization. Wether it is all billion muslims or not, Jihadis still are evil and need to be stopped.
Avideditor,
I hear ya’.
I generally stay clear of the on-going debate, but eventually I have to speak up when those who don’t believe in God, attack those who do so vehemently. As if their “belief” is infallible.
Islam is a dysfunctional, maladaptive death cult. Even though not all muslims subscribe to the 65% of the koran that attacks Jews and infidels, they are vulnerable to it’s deadly tenets, by virtue of takfir.
The God I know, would have never chosen such a wretched example of human kind, to reveal his Holy word. The messenger was the message, and Ol’ Moh’s pathetic tome, is the tangential ramblings of a homicidal maniac, an epileptic, and a pedophile.
As for Chucky, I don’t know what happened to him. All I know is, he has either revealed, over time, that his center is corrupted, or it always was, and he had been able to conceal it, for a time. His requiring such strict adherence to his dogma, is a disgusting display of authoritarianism, and those that subscribe to his doctrine, reveal themselves as unthinking, and unreliable allies, in the ongoing GWOT. Let them scream “WAYTHIST” and “NAZI” all they want. They offer little proof, other than to agree with what Chucky has presented, which is most often easily disputed or disproved.
Ok this is my last dig, until the next time.
433 Charles 12/06/08 10:23:33 am reply quote 2
re: #432 serr8d
Are you going to answer the questions about what field of science you claim to have spent your entire life in?
437 serr8d 12/06/08 10:25:33 am reply quote -2
re: #433 Charles
Physics, Charles. Not biology. So I can’t say that evolution is right or wrong.
Lack of credentials, you see.
Interesting that in order to argue in favor of ID at Logical General Fallacies you must have the proper credentials, to argue in favor of evolution, not so much.
I may have posted this already on a different section of this site but I was banned this morning for challenging Charles on his recent jihad in the ben stein story post. Evolutionist are like greenist in their zeal and their pounding of their chests with statements like “we have science on our side.” I asked Charles to let us know when he started posted all the articles on creationism and evolution. He then banned me.
Poof
Welcome to the club.
cane_loader,
Hate to pee on the parade but some of feel the same about talking anything of Islam. I swear, that bores me to the point of gnashing teeth. Sorry. To each, their own.
Jehu,
Yes, Gagdad Bob is one of the best on the net. Kind of an Iowahawk, grounded in spirituality and common sense. Funny, clever guy and I have commented at his site a few times.
Poof,
Wear your banning as a badge of honor.
Poof, I saw your comments over there and I was cheering you on from the side-lines. You did a good job of peacefully demonstrating your opinions, but unfortunately all dissent to the Dear Leader must be snuffed out. Dissent is a personal affront to Chuck’s frail ego and he has created an environment, and mindless followers that shield him from any REAL respectable contradicting dialog. I am beginning to think that there’s a mental or emotional deficiency there in the “way” he often responds. I can almost imagine him sitting at the keyboard with his arms crossed like a pouting child. He and others like Many Manners “lash out” like children. The “ding-down” system is very similar to play-ground games, and they seem to relish in this juvenile interaction. They FEED off of it like slithering, seething carnivorous lizards with a pack mentality. You gave them hell and I’m proud of you for hanging in there when they were attacking you. The more people challenge them, the more they are revealeed for the liberal Christian-haters they are, and that’s not good for business…that’s why folks like you and ANY one who dare interfere with Chuck’s agenda to move the conservative left to the right is silenced quickly. The sad thing is, he doesn’t announce a valid “reason” for his bans when he’s questioned about it after the fact (all people see is a deleted comment), but instead gives the blanket “sock puppet and /or troll” response so the others are convinced the person was banned for egregious violation, when in fact it is often nothing of the sort. Most people are banned merely for dissenting. It’s a classic dictator control mechanism.
I beleive chuck is purposefully posting threads on Creationism to “weed out” all dissenters, and when he opens his registration, he is “filling” those spots with more like-minded people. I’ve noticed a drastic change in the “tone” of the conversations there, and I think it becoming increasingly “dark” in content. We are watching the “evolution” of LFG and I am thankful that chuck and his followers are being “outed” for the very anti-conservative group they are. The gig is up.
Poof, You fought the good fight! Now welcome back from the dark side.
OOPS, I meant to say “that’s why folks like you and ANY one who dare interfere with Chuck’s agenda to move the conservative RIGHT to the LEFT is silenced quickly”.
Well that’s what chuck “is” trying to do….convince the right they must move “left” to win. He is fighting for this tooth and nail and will only ratchet up his attack on the right as time goes by and we get closer to the next presidential election. He has already waged an all-out war against Governor Jindal and as claimed him “disqualified” to be president because he is a Creationist. Last time I checked, he was doing a pretty good job of running Louisiana, but Prince Charles has already deemed him unfit for the Republican Party. We must NOT LET this left-wing kook have any say in who the conservative party chooses…and believe me, if you think he’s attacking now, just wait. His sole agend right now is to “change” the republican/conservative right.
Message for Charles…YOU ARE NO CONSERVATIVE. WE WANT YOU OUT!!!!! GO BACK TO YOUR ROOTS AND YOUR LIBERAL PARTY. YOU’RE NOT WANTED HERE.
I was banned twice for speaking against holy evolution!
And Charlie may be a political conservative, but he is not a social or religios conservative. He doesnt understand that the politics is a result of the social and religious beliefs.
Good analysis Mats. It’s insulting that he wants to cherry pick what suits his personal “needs” from the conservative right like national security, but wants to launch an all-out attack at the FOUNDATIONS of that movement. Instead of trying to budge the right, he should try to change his liberal allies into becoming stronger on national security. I don’t think he has any other interest in Republicans honestly, accept for maybe fiscal conservatism. I think he could just dump the rest of conservative republican tenants in the trash (such as bans on gay marriage etc…..he voted against Prop 8 and was very vocal about it.) He hates true conservatism, hence he’s trying to “tailor it” to move more to center trying to convince everyone that’s the only way to “win”. His followers are swallowing it whole and joining in on the attack.
/and possibly one flattened bicycle rider
Tuffasnails,
Yeah, we have to be very weary of “conservatives” who try to move true conservatives to the middle. JOhn McCain tried that and failed. Good thing he failed!
The soul of the conservative party is its SUPERIOR judeo-christian heritage rooted in the “rights that come from the Creator”. Chuckie doesn’t understand that.
This may offend some people, but I am having a harder and harder time in trusting non-christian non-religious jews conservatives. I mean no harm, but it seems that those non-christian, non-jewish so called “conservatives” will back stab us the first moment they have.
It’s safer to trust in those conservatives who are religiously comited to the judeo-christian worldview, based on creation. It’s ok to have some degree of trust in others, but take what they say with a shovel of salt.
People like Charles have given me a lot to think about when it comes to “conservattives”.
Thanks for the words of encouragement Tex and tuffasnails and everyone. I was initially shocked at the banning. My last comment I admit on the site was tongue in cheek a bit but by then I was trying to lighten things up. I challenged Charles and clearly he doesn’t like direct confrontation. What a shame really that a good site has gone down the tubes. Man does that guy have an ax to grind with religion. I will say a prayer for him.
Poof,
That’s par for the course over at Chuckles Charnel House.
bar, #17:
I agree, I never got to argue a young earth theory, I was banned before I got the chance.
I never intended on defending the young earth view at LGF or anywhere else. I did not want to.
#49 bar
Hey, and that’s just what I was saying in my post above, #9.
There’s a double standard at LGF:
In order for anti-Darwinists to speak up there, they are expected to work as scientists.
But anyone and everyone at LGF, including uneducated people who do nothing but shovel up elephant poo at the circus for a living, are permitted to make anti-I.D. or anti-Creationism remarks, and they are given a pass, rather than a litmus test.
El Chucko makes demands of anti-Darwnists that he does not of pro-Darwnists.
tuffasnails, #18:
What is your take on this verse by Jesus Christ [by Peter]”… 2Peter 3:8
It tells me that God does not always view time in the same way that humans do.
I don’t extrapolate from that, however, that each and every reference to “days” in the Bible should be understood or interpreted as being millions or thousands of years.
If you personally wish to believe that the “days” in the creation account represent thousands or millions or billions of years, that’s fine with me.
As I said previously, I am not passionate about debating this with other people.
What bothers me is when pro-Darwinists will not permit any anti-Darwinist arguments to be made at schools, scientific journals, blogs, or discussion boards.
I see that revparadigm replied to you post in #41, though.
Jehu #21
The “gap” theory falls under the umbrella of theistic evolution, as does the “day age” theory. There are other varities of theistic evolution, but I can’t remember what all of them are called.
cane loader, #31
Very well put. I agree with everything you said, especially this part:
#34 avideditor
You’re kidding! I’m older than you are! For some reason, I was thinking you are in your 50s or 60s.
#50 Poof
Welcome, Poof!
It’s too bad what has happened to LGF. I hadn’t read it in a while, and just logged on today after a prolonged absence. I was surprised and disappointed to find that LGF has become an echo-chamber of lockstep conformity to the great and powerful Chaz. I was dismayed by the smugness and the a&&kissiness of the threads, and also by the derision directed at those who “dare to challenge the great and powerful Chaz”….It used to be lively, interesting, and thoughtful. Now it isn’t. Nuff said.
Why doesn’t Charles post stuff like this http://democracybroadcasting.blogspot.com/2008/12/jews-christians-challenge-socal.html ? Who know, I think his anti-God jihad has gone far enough. It is good IMHO that he is receiving less hits.
RE 63 Yes I am younger than you think. I hope that does not change too much of what you think of me.
I posted on this at my website http://avideditor.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/take-action-have-more-anti-jihadist-children-and-do-what-you-can-to-crush-the-jihadis/ Enjoy. I am not posting here until Savage apologies for deleting one of my comments. But I think the link above should be posted at every website.
Dang, I think Chuckles does actually post these things to ban people at this point. I’m not normally amenable to the anti-evolution crowd but I don’t usually bother to debate, therefore I don’t set up threads in which the subject will be debated. Charles avoids other subjects he could easily avoid this one, but never does. Either he’s trying to push another blogger’s buttons (like he does with Vlaams Belang posts) or he’s trying to keep his camp cleared of people he doesn’t like on principle.
“Young Earth”? One of the first times I’ve heard people talk about this. Interesting. I’ve read about people with this view but not run into them. People here believe this? Interesting…..
Wow. Lots of goodies like this one (and more banning by Chuckles:
318 Charles 12/05/08 10:14:31 am reply quote 7
Creationist meltdown!
Sorry, you don’t get to post your long, insulting, idiotic farewell message.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32087_Malkin_on_Nirth_Certifikit_Kooks_-_Plus-_Hate_Mail_of_the_Day/comments/#ctop
Lex: Either he’s trying to push another blogger’s buttons (like he does with Vlaams Belang posts) or he’s trying to keep his camp cleared of people he doesn’t like on principle.
Me: You know, it is interesting, considering the rally cry during the election that Republicans needed to ‘Stop focusing on principle’ and ‘have a bigger tent’ in order to win, during his crusade against the conservatives. Like I predicted on one of the threads: Perhaps those who rail against conservatives being too ‘principled’ are really just wanting to replace conservative principles with their mushy liberal ones.
Liberal ideas are death IMHO. It is wierd how none of the liberals are mentioning how they messed up America. I guess they want to mess it up even more. Give it two years the conservative are going to take back the congress. I just hope the libs do not destroy America too much before then.
RE 68 Lex who are you calling “idiotic”? Attack the ideas not the people.
Dems don’t admit their fault. Barney Frank is a great example. On the Financial oversight committee, declaring that there needs to be some oversight of the financial industry to avoid the horrible events (that he caused) that are facing us now.
They point fingers and blame others, specifically Republicans. (Now, in fairness, BOTH sides are at fault in this issue, but his declaring ignorance of it is classic Dem)
Democrats controlled congress for the last two years. Look at the economy because of it.
avideditor
Most of the people who voted Obama thought that those evil republicans controlled congress.
Obama got the stupid vote.
From: Logical General Fallacies
Fark Puzzled
Blogosphere | Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:42:11 am PST
The Fark.com kiddies don’t know what to think about my stance against the Obama nirth certifikit lunacy.
Am I a hate-filled fanatic, or a pretty reasonable guy? Is the lizardoid army just like the Nazis, or are they a bunch of rational thinkers? Stay tuned for the next thrilling episode.
Nice example of a false dichotomy from who else but Logical General Fallacies.
Well I wouldn’t go so far as to say hateful, a bigot yes, but hateful seems like to strong a word.
Now he is not reasonable and the lizardoid army are not rational by any stretch of the imagination.
Playing guilt by association with Robert Spencer and what is on the Jihad Watch blog roll is not “reasonable”, its stupidity ad nauseam.
Yes bar but I would rather read LGF than most blogs from an average fark user. That is saying alot because I think LGF is an anti-G-d blog that likes calling everyone Nazis.
avideditor
I agree, to a point.
You just have to be careful on the analogies and conclusions drawn there by Charles.
They are overflowing with logical fallacies and thus extremely weak arguments that cant standup to any scrutiny.
bar:
Most of the people who voted Obama thought that those evil republicans controlled congress.
Obama got the stupid vote.
Well, I voted for Obama cause I can’t stomach McCain. I remember when ol’ Charlie Keating got his and I was living in Phoenix at the time that all went down. McCain was part of the Keating 5, remember that?
Why the fuck the Republican Party got John as the standardbearer is way beyond me. I wanted Mike Huckabee to be the nominee if you want to know.
I had to stomach McCain, because I couldn’t make myself vote for obama for any amount of money in the world.
arwyn, check your email. I sent you some information on the remake of this site.
Avid, RE:70…Lex was quoting Charles. thought I would hope to clarify that for ya.
rainydayweather, I am a young Earther..I was just asking that for conversations sake because that statement is in the Bible and that has raised eye-brows in the halls of debate on Creationism, but I think Peter was speaking more to the fact that we cannot apply what WE know of time to G-D’s comprehension of time…nothing more. Thanks for responding though!
And thanks Rev for your commentary too. You are correct in saying that the defining a 24 hour period was established early on in the Bible by applying actual years to the ages of people (and lineage), hence a “day” does not represent a thousand years.
I just want to make LGF happy,
so I now believe in Jesus and Darwin.
/sarc
Btw…chuck is back to bashing Christians tonight because some supposed kook left some stupid email. He wants to hold every idiot who “claims” to be a Christian accountable for true Christianity. the validity of his example holds about as much water as holding every african american accountable for the actions and sayings of the members of Black Panthers, or vice-versa, holding all caucasian people accountable for idiot KKK members. SHEEESH, give me a break! I told you…he will NOT stop his attacks, and of course the first person to voice opposing the attack on Christians gets down dinged..
Kyle_st 12/07/08 1:38:37 pm reply quote -1
[Charles wrote]..”Nothing says “You’re an atheist and I’m a good Christian” like suggesting that someone commit suicide.”
[Kyle_st replied]..You’re going to start wailing on Christians now? Come on…
and then Chuck linked in with some wicked retAHded link about Christians being forbidden to own cats. STUPID!!!
Charles
12/07/08 12:52:55 pm reply quote 4
re: #114 goddessoftheclassroom
Funny enough, I can’t think of a single reference to cats in the entire Bible; I know there are a few to dogs (don’t say it, p-BMb!). Does anyone know of any cat references?
I find that interesting because of the Egyptians reverence for cats but no mention of that in Exodus.
Are cats for true christians?
Is it appropriate for a Christian to own a cat, in light of their past pagan religious affiliation and the medical information that is now coming to light?
Where did you find THAT link Chuck?? STUPID!!! He will stop at nothing to discredit and mock TRUE Christianity by using idiotic fringe NON-Christian doctrines and fanaticism to try to bolster his arguments. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! YOU SUCK CHUCK!!!
Please somebody post this as a thread to shine a light on chuck’s idiot hateful rant, because no one ELSE can speak out about it to his face on his blog. Anyone that tries is silenced. YOU WILL BE EXPOSED CHUCK. YOU GET YOUR REPLY RIIIIIIIIIIIGHT HERE.
And AGAIN chuck rants…
594 Charles
12/07/08 3:50:11 pm reply quote 0
re: #582 Steve
Charles, I would highly suspect this persons christianity. They either are not a Christian or their belief system is sorely amiss.
I don’t know why you think this is not a Christian. I’ve received dozens of similar emails from Christians, sometimes threatening, sometimes abusive, sometimes full of phony concern that I’ll be going to hell and they’re praying for me.
Even right here on LGF, I’ve had several people who think of themselves as Christians tell me in no uncertain terms that I’m doomed to burn in hell, because I reject their creationist hooey.
I understand that not all Christians are like this. But this is far from an unusual occurrence.
73 Jay777 12/07/08 12:36:05 pm reply quote 0
re: #53 Charles
Thank you for clarifying Charles. I wasn’t kidding about agnostic though. I’m agnostic and believe in both, a creator and evolution.
That is an oxymoronic statement, to bad this poster hasnt a clue what agnostic means, a typical occurrence for illogic LGF.
594 Charles 12/07/08 3:50:11 pm reply quote 0
re: #582 Steve
Charles, I would highly suspect this persons christianity. They either are not a Christian or their belief system is sorely amiss.
I don’t know why you think this is not a Christian. I’ve received dozens of similar emails from Christians, sometimes threatening, sometimes abusive, sometimes full of phony concern that I’ll be going to hell and they’re praying for me.
Even right here on LGF, I’ve had several people who think of themselves as Christians tell me in no uncertain terms that I’m doomed to burn in hell, because I reject their creationist hooey.
I understand that not all Christians are like this. But this is far from an unusual occurrence.
I think I am a god, so I must be! To hell with the rest of you.
This just goes right down the same line that LGF will never fact check anything, even a moron knows that a Christian is not acting like a Christian when they spew bile like that, but this fits Capt. Queegs bigotry so well he must use it and tar the rest of Christianity with the same brush.
Daily Kos looks rational when compared to the assclowns at LGF.
Tuffasnails
Thats is too damn funny, I pick the same 594 comment as you.
I know, and we have similar space pictures too!
73 Jay777 12/07/08 12:36:05 pm reply quote 0
re: #53 Charles
Thank you for clarifying Charles. I wasn’t kidding about agnostic though. I’m agnostic and believe in both, a creator and evolution.
I agree %100 with what you said..”That is an oxymoronic statement, to bad this poster hasnt a clue what agnostic means, a typical occurrence for illogic LGF.”
MAN, if I had a dollar for every time I’ve seen that lame-a$$ argument on LGF, I’d be swimmin’ in dough. that’s SHARMUTA’s FAVORITE rebuttal statement and she sounds like a raving idiot every time she she says it. She’s so frackin clueless. I wish just ONE of them would come out and say they don’t believe in Jesus. COWARDS! And just watch..all of those fraudulent, two-faced hypocrites will be saying things like “Merry Christmas” to eachother on Dec. 25, but will go right back to bashing and mocking TRUE CHRISTIANS every other day of the year. They make me sick. LIARS! And that means SHARMUTA especially. Biotch. I can’t STAND the heffer. Ok I better stop.
Did you one of Sharmuta comments about her being ashamed to call herself a Christian after seeing how certain other Christians act?
That guilt by association that LGF plays has her reeling.
Maybe someday she will learn to think for herself, but I wouldn’t hold my breath,
I think being accepted and liked is more important then truth for her and the rest of them.
I cant stand buzzsawmonkey either, he shows up at THE OUTRAGED SPLEEN OF ZION when candy mountain is down or boring.
Wow, are space picture are similar.
Mine pic is called the “Eye of God” so I thought it was appropriate.
For a side job I program touch screen remote controls for home theaters and I used this picture for a background on a remote I did for a gay couple in Hollywood.
LOL, they think the pic is pretty and I never told them what the real name was.
First she needs to realize she gave up (surrendered) her so-called professed Christianity when she got in lock-step with chuck. That person (if there WAS such a person) is gone now. Besides, how can she be ashamed to “call herself a Christian” when she isn’t one in the first place?? That’s the biggest farce I’ve ever heard. And the fact that she would stop calling herself a Christian because of another human being’s stupid statement make her even MORE of an idiot and a follower(if that’s possible).A true Christian doens’t denounce their faith for ANYONE, especially some old washed-out banker computer hack. She does seem terribly desperate to win his approval by trying to be the “wittiest and most present”. LOL
Also, you’re right…chuck’s got everyone so fearful of a guilt by association, that most people are quick to denounce or silence their personal beliefs and opinions for fear of seeming intolerant or linked to someone else. but let’s look at chucky, shall we? didn’t he just “associate” himself with the raving moonbat Roger Ebert, by his rambling diatribe on Ben Stein in authority the other day? There’s one guilt by association. HYPOCRITE!!!
88. LOL
Now it’s watching them all the time….
Mine is a part of the Orion Nebula. I LOVE space stuff. I like the Eye of G-d too. I have a print of the Orion Nebula in my house hanging behind my couch. I wanted to find a bigger print, but couldn’t find one for my whole wall. That would probably cost a FORTUNE, ay? It WOULD be cool though. Expensive but cool.
Referring to #89, I was calling chuck and old washed out BIKER computer hack…not “banker” lol.
There she GOES…..she tries desperately to put the square peg in the round hole. Keep tryin’ to shove in there sharmuta. It definitely makes you look smarter and smarter. /
Sharmuta 12/07/08 12:45:03 pm reply quote 3
re: #107 NYCHardhat
You know what it is, the contempt that each side has for each other causes such tension and animosity.
Except there are plenty of people of faith who accept evolution
Then the a$$ kissing, LOL..”saudi princess” – *gag*
120 NYCHardhat 12/07/08 12:46:40 pm reply quote 1
re: #113 Sharmuta
Except there are plenty of people of faith who accept evolution.
You speak the truth my saudi princess.
I have a small telescope and I also love space stuff, the first time I saw Jupiter from my backyard, I felt so tiny like the smallest speck in the entire universe.
When Capt Queeg started calling creationist anti-science I wanted to ask if he could find Jupiter or Mars or the Orion Nebula and if it required any science to do so and if so then how can I be anti-science and know where they be.
There’s a blog called “Hip and Thigh” that has had some great posts on CJ’s anti-creationism jihad. His most recent post was inspired by CJ’s latest escapades…
Link: The Eugenics Deniers
Escovado,
Thank you for the site! That was one of the best posts I have read about Darwinians in quite some time. Fred Butler said the same things about Johnson that I have been saying for some time – only far more eloquently than I could.
That site is now bookmarked.
Avid–yes, though it was corrected above, that was not me calling anyone idiotic, it was Charles himself. I thought you’d appreciate it and added the link underneath the quote.
Why is this an either/or subject? Why can one not believe in both? Is this a product of taking the Bible literally? I just don’t understand how believing in evolution is anti-God or vice versa. I think that the both go together quite nicely and if some of the evolutionary biologists hadn’t made anti-religion statements sometimes I think there would be no debate. Any scientific theory is up for attack when relatively new in its research. That seems to be all that the anti-evolution movement is, just a self-congratulatory attack mode trying to make a point about the so-called “culture wars”. Just my two cents.
Lex,
“Why is this an either/or subject? Why can one not believe in both? Is this a product of taking the Bible literally?”
The Answers in Genesis web site has a good article regarding your question: Couldn’t God Have Used Evolution?
So it is a product of taking the Bible literally. Which I don’t in terms of most of Genesis, for one main reason, and it is not to question God’s authority at all. Aside from the scientific data to the contrary I don’t believe in the “young Earth” theories.
I believe that God and Jesus are one entity, as do all Christians. Once God became incarnate as Jesus, “entered time and space” according to some theologians, he spoke to humans in parables. We see these clearly as parables and no Christians take them as anything other than what Jesus meant by them. Why would this same God not have spoken to us in parables prior to the Incarnation? Why would Genesis be literal being from a God who taught in parables in the one instance in which He was speaking to us as a fellow human? This may not suffice for many, but for me it is the main reason why I consider that God was perhaps speaking in a more figurative form in many cases in the OT.
Lex,
Do you not understand this battle over evolution has little to do with science? This time, I’m not raking you. I’m trying to explain it to you. I just want you to understand that Ben Stein’s movie beautifully exposed the real agenda of this debate.
Personally, I think much of evolution is bunk and I’ve had all these same sciences. So unlike Darwin Johnson’s assertion that people who don’t buy off about the current theroy are dummies and loons, my disagreements are not based on some superstition of faith. Most of the medical students I know agree – not that we will challenge it openly, though. I even know brilliant professors who kind of just skip the subject because they are not comfortable with the “theory” either.
The problem is, you can’t even challenge the current dogma. You can’t point evolutions faults, its shortcomings, its wild leaps in speculation, without being labeled a lessor breed. Though I take some of Genesis as allegory, most of it I do take literally. I’m neither a young earth type, nor am I a six day type as you and I understand days.
But neither do I accept that all you see happened without intervention; divine intervention. The Bible makes this fact very clear, both OT and NT. In fact, I will make the same statement to Darwinians that they make to me. I think they are completely irrational and silly in their beliefs. They avoid the blatantly obvious fact that their theory is completely impossible mathematically, chemically, biologically – you name the science.
And I think they know it too. What evolutionists refuse to accept are the ramifications of what it means if you can not explain creation through natural selection.
Lex
I understand where you are coming from, years ago I thought and argued your very same position.
Now I have gravitated toward to the other side.
I think Ben Siten’s movie is really good. Lex you should see it.
Lex,
I see what you mean. But think of this: in order for us to take the description in Genesis as allegorial, shouldn’t the text itself allude to its allegorical status?
The truth of the matter is that nowehere Genesis speaks of itself as allegorical. The trms used, the consistency, the wording all imply historical descrition. We may disagree with what it says, but we canot say that it doesn’t say what it says..
Peace.
Secondly, the fact that the Lord spoke in parables in many instances in God’s Word, doesn’t mean that God only speaks in parables..
Even an incurious glance at the driving engine of natural selection should make most people laugh, yet instead giant university libraries are filled with stacks of tomes written by “so called,” intelligent and educated people. Evolution has become the de-facto standard of cultural thought, and is the publicly acceptable form of worship in the Western World and is one of the prime reasons God has loosed his dogs of war (Islam) to wreck havoc on a cultural that he blessed with enlightenment and science, both spiritual and scientific truth. Instead we turned and perverted scientific truth, and have used it as tool to mock God.
Think of the actual practical working out of natural selection as taught by evolutionists. I will give an example of a so called fish that transitioned to an animal that could walk on land, and remember you must then do this same scenario for thousands of species, for the ancestral land animal that became the first bird, for the first reptile that became a mammal etc.
So here is our heroic fish, somehow in the RANDOM genetic game it is born with nubs instead of fins. Perhaps it still has its main swimming fin, but now its lesser fins on the bottom of the body have become nubs. For some reason this confers to this fish an ecological advantage, we are not told what that may be, as it is no longer a perfect fish swimming in a sea of predators, that creates an environment that makes all species uptight and looking for a new ecological niche.
So nub fish somehow meets up with nub fish female, (anyone ever dating knows there is just not any fish out there that is LIKE you). But anyway maybe his nub genes are dominate to her fin genes and they have nub babies…etc. For some reason all the predators leave nub fishes alone, maybe they think they are cute. Anyway somewhere along the line nub fish takes excursions out to the beach, usually he dies, but for some reason some nub progeny were developing lungs and they survive, and hop around with their nubs for ten thousands of years eating sand fleas (don’t ask me where they came from!).
Eventually nub fish develops legs, full lungs and lives happily on land as first amphib. Now this is so extraordinarily ridiculous I am shocked educated people accept this nonsense, you really got to hate the creator to invent this garbage, then to erect museums, and your own priesthood of white lab coated sceintists to excumincate any sceptics.
So if I understand this properly all significant development of species was driven by the survival of the fitess, such a powerful force it created the millions of extinct, and extant species we know about. Yet somehow in the painful transition from a perfectly functioning species of some kind, this fierce drive, this genetic force to survive is suspended among all the other animals not doing this inter-species transition? When transitioning species is not a good fish, nor a good amphib? And do this for all major species changes, especially for root species where all sorts of other species came from? This is a fantasy to be told to little kids.
The arguments about Genesis come about because people are not Hebrew scholars. The Hebrew words give away a lot more information. Now I know some think the GAP theory between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 may be evolution smuggled into the back door, but it is not. Also the GAP theory pre-dates evolutionary theory, it was not invented to assuage evolutionary claims. It was known by Rabbis and the early church fathers. Simply put God creates the physical universe via a single creative act (Let there be light!)
There is no other scientific theory as well backed by observation and math as the Big Bang. Unless spoken to by God in vision or dream, I believe it is the truth. The universe is 14 billion years old, the earth is 5 billion years old, physical properties of matter and energy were pre-set by God in the first seconds of the Big Bang, that in itself is extraordinary testimony to the power and character of God. Those who have dug into the big bang are forced to admit that there was a creative act, whether agnostic, atheist or believer. The scientists investigating the big bang, many have to say it was a creative act by a supreme being, they are force to worship, for that reason alone I would say it is the truth, since it causes people to worship the creator.
It also ministers to the human spirit to know this is not some fly-by-night operation, God is doing this purposefully and with forethought, and He is patient for it to all mature, just like He is patient for us to mature spiritually. Now Genesis 1:2 uses the Hebrew words I think they are (tofu and bofu) that was translated “formless and void.” These particular Hebrew words are only used a couple of times in scripture and they are always coupled with the meaning of Divine Judgment. So from Genesis 1:1 to Gensis 1:2 can be any length of time. I think Genesis 1:2 is looking at an already created earth, but one that is destroyed under a judgement. Then the rest of the creation hymn uses Hebrew words that mean re-creation, not the creation ex-nihlo of Genesis 1:1.
I do not know then if the following are 6 24 hour days or not, but it does not matter IMO. All that matters is God creates the universe, then he creates life. And he puts a limit on life by saying everything brings forth seed, “after its kind.” We know this to be true in animal husbandry.
You can mate a horse and donkey to get a mule, but mules are STERILE. That is the end of the line. Same for botany, you can graft a tangerine branch to a orange tree and get tangelos, but the seeds in the tangelo will produce either tangerines or oranges, you will not get a tangelo tree…end of line. Evolution is bunk both by 6,000 years of human interaction with nature and the experience of plant and animal breeders. All evolutionary theory is pure speculation, it is imaginary, none of it is proved, other than adaptation of species for isolated geographic areas, or due to climate. And the fossil record contradicts evolution, species are seen as is, and the pre-Cambrian explosion of species gives lie to the idea of slow development of species over time.
Jehu,
I agree with most of what you said. Let me ask you one thing: are you the Jehu from dalnet? I seem to recall a Jehu who used to dwell theren
Mats
No, I posted as Jehu and then Kepler Sings on LFG2 Years ago I used to post on the NYT forums as Pault70. I went there to pray for the downfall of that evil paper. Looks like that is now coming about.
Jehu,
Alright. Thanks.
Oh, yes, looks like your prayers worked. Mind praying for my safe trip to Oporto next Wednesday?
300km :-/
Jehu
Very Nice, that is spot on and really funny how absurd it really is.
A college biology book I had talked about man going from knuckle dragger to biped and all the same principles you mention apply.
Jehu the Gap theory and the world being judged for sin before Adam sinned creates irreconcilable contradictions with other scriptures. Besides the obvious one that Adam was not millions of years old, it is injecting that days all the sudden just changes length & meaning without any warning or announcement.
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
The context is clearly that the Sabbath for the Jews is a single day and night, not a age. So five of the days meant billions, then the sixth day was literal and the seventh also for the Sabbath? The sixth day has to be literal day because Adam’s lifespan is listed in scripture. The other contradiction is that scripture says sin & death entered the world through Adam [roman 5:12], not before He was created. The Greek word for “world” there is “Kosmos” which is quite obviously referring to universal state. So Satan’s disobedience was causing Adam & Eve to disobey, in which God identified Adam’s sin as the original in His judgment.
“Formless and void” doesn’t mean judgment, its a state… it more over simply means unfinished and incomplete. It is merely a account how God does things. He speaks and His Spirit performs. The Jeremiah 4:23 reference of formless and void is a entirely different context that people try to mash together as if it’s speaking of Genesis 1:2, which it clearly isn’t. The reason the prophet Jeremiah said “I saw no man” is so plainly spoken of that they had all fled because of the sound of a coming army.
To me the Gap theory is just another compromise with flawed theory dating.
Amen to that, Rev
revparadigm said:
Jehu the Gap theory and the world being judged for sin before Adam sinned creates irreconcilable contradictions with other scriptures.
How so? I no longer have the book by G.H. Pember called “Earths Earliest Ages,” but he was a tremendous Bible scholar and expert in Hebrew. You will note in reading Genesis 1:1-2 that, according to the literal wording of the Bible, the Earth is already here. It is found in a devastated and darkness shrouded condition before the start of God’s work of the first day and BEFORE He says “..Let there be light” in Genesis 1:3.
Knowing the character of God he only destroys because of sin. Pember brings forth the idea that there was probably a pre-Adamic race or even races before Adam. We do not know one way or the other, but certain scriptures intimate it is so, we can investigate. The Bible is not an open-ended book, it is concerned with sin, and the plan for redemption. It spends page after page in Genesis on Abraham and his family, but two pages on the creation of the universe and earth.
It is up to us to discover those things and to understand how the age of the universe and the earth fit the story of sin and redemption. Believe me young earthers are doing a diservice to themselves and Christianity to stubbornly look at such things as the age of the earth, ratiometric dating of isotopes, obvious age indicators as the formation of diamonds, plate tectonics, the formation of coal etc. These things take geological ages, it is true.
We are left with the fact that Genesis 1:1 IS talking about the orginal creation of the universe and the earth, God spends one verse on it, because it is not pertinent to our salvation. All truth, scientific and scriptural will harmonize, if they don’t it is because we are misinterpreting scripture, or science, or both. I would investigate the GAP theory and what men like Pember and others have said, also Arthur C. Custance is a good source, his link is at my website.
So in brief, IMO the earth existed, then sometime in the past and that is probably when we see evidence of great catastrophes in the earth, the Mastadons and Sabre Tooth Tigers were wiped out in great floods and upheavels, some places have the fossilized bones of Mastodons, Tigers and Whales jumbled up and mixed together. Some great judgment befell the earth probably IMO wiping out a sinful man-like race.
God starts over with Adam, once again the fall. He deals with that, but wipes out about 1 billion people in the flood of Noah. God is persistent, He will have his creation, and will always judge sin. I find it hard to understand if God wiped out the human race except for 8 people, He would not have wiped out an earlier race of men for sin. I do not see conflict with the rest of the creation hymn of Genesis, as Pember points out God is constantly commanding the earth to “bring forth,” as if the seed is already in the earth, when the Hebrew has perfectly good words to use for creation new, or ex nihlo.
I have enough imagination to think as part of the earth’s judgment it passed though an intragalactic cloud that could have obscured the light of the sun, or been tilted on its axis, any number of cataclysmic events. One passage in Isaiah talks of the earth tottering to and fro like a drunkard, an apt description of the tilt and precession of the earth in that tilt (the earth wobbles on its pole). Here and there in the Bible is references to the war of the angels with Satan, I think we are human and we think we are the main picture and the main focus of God. It could be we are the last man in the relay race of a long and ancient struggle.
In fact our scientific discoveries keep humbling us and showing us we are not the center of the universe, but scripture lifts us up and informs us we are so beloved of God He died for us to be redeemed. I think we need to allow both things, knowledge and revelation to be part of the picture.
Good get, Bar, re: peer review. Standards are standards.
I love reading these Darwinist vs. Creationist threads- they make me laugh because of the more or less one sided nature of the arguments here. You claim to have left LGF because it was an echo chamber for the ‘anti-god’ believers, so you have set up an echo chamber for the ‘anti-science’ believers? Oh, the irony!
And Jehu, you might want to stay away from botany in your arguments- your points about grafting are absolutely correct, but at the same time completely out of context. Grafting is not evolutionary, nor is it natural selection by any means. It takes human intervention (and skill) to graft one plant to another. However, choosing seeds from plants with desired traits and cultivating them will, over time, yield a superior plant. Botanists do this with regularity with great results, as evidenced by many open-pollinated vegetable varieties on the market today. True, this is not evidence of natural selection either, as humans are doing the selection, but ‘natural selection’ does exist- take Darwin’s Finches for example. To completely rule out environmental pressure, interbreeding of closely related species, and selective advantage in furthering the niche of a particular organism because of a religious belief is pure closed-mindedness.
Also, I think many people here equate Darwinism with Evolutionary theory, and that is about as absurd as equating Creationism with ID, IMO. ‘Evolutionary theory’ is just that- a scientific theory. All scientific theories change when confronted with overwhelming scientific evidence that the theory in question is flawed, and then the theory is updated to reflect the new evidence. So far, the scientific evidence points to an Earth that is billions of years old, and that isolated species have changed over time to better use the resources that are available to them, thus becoming new species.
Is there a ‘deity’ controlling this ‘evolution’? Who can truly say with any certainty, without relying on belief in the first books of the Bible that were based on handed down memories and tales told around the campfires of an early Neolithic culture?
/my 2¢
One of the Banned: I happen to agree with you on evolution (I think), but the problem with LGF is that the “echo chamber” is maintained by banning those who disagree with Chuckles.
Comment by (one of the banned.) Funny but the OVERWHELMING evidence of the fossil record is for species to appear as is, wholly formed. The only transitory species are those labeled so by evolutionists who are compelled to find them, somewhere. They usually find one or two every decade, until cooler heads point out they are probably looking at a distinct species.
If it was true the fossil record would be filled with transitional forms. It is the reason Stephen Gould et al came up with the stupid “puncuated equilibrim,” theory that “well, everything goes along at geological ages time, until suddenly evolution speeds up and creates multitues of species at such a pace the transitional species don’t show up in the fossil record.” What a convieniently plastic theory. Fossils don’t show up? Then invent a theory that says the rate of evolution changes willy nilly. Evolution is filled with this nonsense, unlike the REAL sciences.
And your observation about plants is exactly opposite of what you should conclude. Here we have intelligence mucking around with the plants which could be viewed as super evolutionary pressure. And yet we still cannot get hybrid seeds. An example of species wanting to stay with the same morphology over time is dogs, which humans have been tinkering with for thousands of years. We get all manner of shapes and sizes, but if left alone to breed wild all the dog varieties would dissapear back into something close to the wolf. It takes INTELLIGENCE to force changes. Random mutations will never do the trick, as almost all randome mutations, if not all, are deleterious to the organism. Evolution is scientific masturbation.
One of the Banned,
Feel free to base your opinion on what you believe. My beliefs are not your beliefs, but I don’t begrudge you your opinion. I think you are wrong; you think me wrong.
Darwin Johnson works under the premise of stifling dissent. That does happen here as evidence by your post. You have missed the message of our complaint. If there is an echo chamber here, it not by design as it is at LGF.
One of the Banned,
This site was set up long before Chuckles set up his blog as an Evolution vs. Creationism site.
I, for one, don’t accept that you would have to believe in evolution to reject the more outlandish claims of the creationists. Nor do I believe that those who propose evolution have enough answers to claim that they have destroyed the idea of creationism.
For the record though, the difference between the shrieking harpies over at LGF and the posters here is that you can post some pretty outrageous shit and not get banned.
Over at LGF, all you have to do is disagree with Chuckles or do a search for those that he banned, and you suddenly find yourself without posting privileges. I’m not saying it happens every time, but there are plenty that it happened to that do post here and at a few other sites.
So, no, this isn’t an echo chamber in opposition to Chuckles; in fact we share many of the same values as those who post over there. We just don’t ban people for speaking their minds, and believe that people shouldn’t have to fear being silenced for voicing an opinion.
Jehu-
You need to study geology a bit more if you think that the fossil record should be ‘filled with transitional forms’. Fossilization is a rare event, geologically speaking, and doesn’t record every minute change in the evolution of a given species.
“And yet we still cannot get hybrid seeds.”
That’s funny, I buy hybrid seeds regularly, but then again, it’s a moot point biologically, and does nothing to further your argument.
“It takes INTELLIGENCE to force changes. Random mutations will never do the trick, as almost all randome mutations, if not all, are deleterious to the organism.”
And here is another example of where you are proven wrong by science. You haven’t looked into the recent studies of the evolution of ‘Darwin’s Finches’, have you? Or the evolution of the turtle’s shell?
Tex-
Yes, we agree to disagree on evolutionary theory, but you prove my (and many others) point by calling ‘Chuckles the Dancing Clown™’ Darwin Johnson. Most scientists accept that strict Darwinism was a flawed theory, hence the current evolutionary theory.
PC-
“Nor do I believe that those who propose evolution have enough answers to claim that they have destroyed the idea of creationism.”
Nor do I, but the scientifically illiterate of those banned from LGF do seem to have swarmed here. Regardless of the original intent of the administrators of this blog.
I DO appreciate the differences between LGF and LGF2- here I can ask for the proof behind a post without concern of being banned from the site.
“It is up to us to discover those things and to understand how the age of the universe and the earth fit the story of sin and redemption. Believe me young earthers are doing a diservice to themselves and Christianity to stubbornly look at such things as the age of the earth, ratiometric dating of isotopes, obvious age indicators as the formation of diamonds, plate tectonics, the formation of coal etc. These things take geological ages, it is true.”
Disservice? I have probably met more people who cling to old earth ideals that were far more stubborn. But that is not atypical of people who believe whatever…being stubborn, not willing to listen is a choice apart of this subject. Diamonds, oil and coal do not take “ages” to make. The no.1 ingredient for all these is pressure, not time. We now have the ability to make oil in a matter of hours. “thermal depolymerisation process” (TDP) that can recycle seven tons of waste a day into gas and oil has been running for three years in Philadelphia. It is designed to transform 200 tons of guts, beaks, blood and bones a day from a nearby turkey processing plant into 10 tons of gas and 600 barrels of oil. Coal can made in a very short period of time with pressure and heat also.
“The arguments about Genesis come about because people are not Hebrew scholars. The Hebrew words give away a lot more information. Now I know some think the GAP theory between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 may be evolution smuggled into the back door, but it is not. Also the GAP theory pre-dates evolutionary theory, it was not invented to assuage evolutionary claims. It was known by Rabbis and the early church fathers. Simply put God creates the physical universe via a single creative act (Let there be light!)”
The confusion this creates is obvious. A day doesn’t mean a day, then all the sudden it does again without even changing the topic? The day-age theory has to mystically end by the sixth day no matter what…without a single reference why. Again the gap theory is a nice idea that creates more contradictions in scripture than it solves and places ideas, such as “pre Adamite race”, in there that simply have no basis whatever so ever. Claiming that “early Rabbis and Church leaders knew of it” doesn’t make it the basis of truth, there are old and new concepts about the bible that simply are just not in the scripture. I know alot of the modern basis for pre Adamite ideas are because of old english words used in the KJV like “replenish”. Replenish then meant simply to fill back then, but the proper way to correctly divide is go to the Hebrew…in which “maw-lay” means “to fill”.
Again “tohu – bohu” are not judgment words. In the Hebrew there is no such description contained in the words. They are simply descriptive of the state of something. Those words are only used twice, in Genesis 1:2, which says nothing of judgment [the context is creation process] and in Jeremiah 4:23, in which Jeremiah described the earth as “tohu & bohu”…
“I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.”
Jeremiah 4:23-26
I know this is where the pre Adamite race concept came from this for a gap theory, trying to tie the usage of “without form and void” to Genesis 1:2. People pointed to these verses and say “Ha! see there was no man but there was birds, there was no light, but there was cities that were destroyed…” That is nothing more than taking verses out of context from the surrounding verses in the topic for another purpose. Its a fatal mistake everytime…because if you keep reading it so simply explains why Jeremiah saw no man, why there was no light shining, why the cities were destroyed.
“For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end. For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it. The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks: every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein.”
Jeremiah 4:27-29
Is this speaking of Genesis 1:2? Of course not, its speaking the disobedience of man of man will make the earth “tohu & bohu”…useless and empty, void of the purpose. Those words do not declare the topic is judgment. Again they are merely a description of the present state of whatever it is referring to.
I don’t dislike the concept of the gap theory in and of itself. If God decided to take billions of years to form things, He can do whatever way He wants. The reason I take issue with it all is because it the source of creating contradictions within scripture, that snow ball into other topics other than creation…even forcing you to reject definitive verses [like I mentioned with just how sin entered the world]. That is a serious problem that works against upholding the integrity of what is written as a whole. I refuse to allow beliefs that are brought into the bible from the outside that do this, without facing the issue head on and tirelessly addressing them.
“I, for one, don’t accept that you would have to believe in evolution to reject the more outlandish claims of the creationists. Nor do I believe that those who propose evolution have enough answers to claim that they have destroyed the idea of creationism.”
Comment by Passionate Conservative — December 8, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
Well said! That is the only reason I’m here. I can express my beliefs on one topic without being banned, while standing with my fellow American against tyranny that threatens our freedom to live this out.
revparadigm
You keep saying that the GAP theory introduces contradictions in scripture but you do not then catalog those contradictions. You then make my point that tofu and bofu are only used twice in scripture, in Jer 4: 27-29 in an obvious reference to divine judgement, and then in Genesis 1:2. When there are other Hebrew words that could be used to designate the earth a waste. You have yet to deal with the fact that the earth appears already made in Genesis 1:2 and then God goes about doing some creative work…here are the scriptures:
1(A)In the beginning (B)God (C)created the heavens and the earth.
2The earth was [a](D)formless and void, and (E)darkness was over the surface of the deep, and (F)the Spirit of God (G)was [b]moving over the surface of the waters.
3Then (H)God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
4God saw that the light was (I)good; and God (J)separated the light from the darkness.
5(K)God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And (L)there was evening and there was morning, one day.
6Then God said, “Let there be an (M)expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7God made the [c]expanse, and separated (N)the waters which were below the expanse from the waters (O)which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9Then God said, “(P)Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let (Q)the dry land appear”; and it was so.
10God called the dry land earth, and the (R)gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
11Then God said, “Let the earth sprout (S)vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them”; and it was so.
12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.
13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14Then God said, “Let there be (T)lights in the (U)expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for (V)signs and for (W)seasons and for days and years;
15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so.
16God made the two great lights, the (X)greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made (Y)the stars also.
17(Z)God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
18and to (AA)govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
20Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”
21God created (AB)the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
22God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”
23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24(AC)Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.
25God made the (AD)beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26Then God said, “Let (AE)Us make (AF)man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them (AG)rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27God created man (AH)in His own image, in the image of God He created him; (AI)male and female He created them.
28God blessed them; and God said to them, “(AJ)Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29Then God said, “Behold, (AK)I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;
30and (AL)to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so.
31God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very (AM)good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Genesis 1:3 makes no sense unless there was a watery covering or intergalatic cloud around the earth’s orbit, the sun already exists. Genesis 1:4-10 deal with seperations of water above and on the earth, then gathering of the seas and dry land appears.
Whatever is happening here is showing the earth was shrouded in water and covered with water. That would have to mean something pretty unusual about the earth at that time. Genesis 1:11-13 is the recreation of plants, by the Hebrew it is apparent the God is calling forth vegetation to sprout, not creating new plants.
Genesis 1: 14-19 makes no sense at all unless it is a comment about the original creation of stars and our sun and the moon. Very hard to believe the sun and stars were made after the creation of the earth. Genesis 1:20-25 seems to me to be literally the creation of animal life on the earth. Were all living things killed before Genesis 1:1? It seems so. We know there was a mass extinction of animals about 10,000 years ago, placing it before Genesis 1:1.
Now could all of this be wrong and God created everything in 6 days, sure I have no problem with the immediate creative power of God. But I also have good scientific evidence that the earth is old, the universe is older, until something comes along with stronger evidence I tend to believe that evidence. Also though I believe the account of the 6 days is probably a literal 24 hours each, I also know scripture cannot be taken on face value, as there is always an illumination of spiritual light needed in order to understand scripture. Just think of Genesis 1:2 It speaks of the earth, but it is also speaking of the creative act for each human being that will be made into the image of God (Romans 8 and the unveiling of the sons of God)
Genesis 1:2-3 The earth was [a](D)formless and void, and (E)darkness was over the surface of the deep, and (F)the Spirit of God (G)was [b]moving over the surface of the waters.
3Then (H)God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
We are EARTH, made of the elements of the earth. And truly without God we are formless and void and awaiting judgment, or living in the disastor of the judgment that came upon Adam. But God has/is brooding over us and then He declares light (revelation). The Bible is not a one dimensional tome, it is something far more, with unplumed depths and revelation in every verse.
But for Christians the deadly thing about evolutionary theory is it does away with the doctrine of orginal sin, for that reason alone, even if science overwhelmingly says we descended from groups or tribes of apes, it must be rejected, for if no orginal sin, then no need for Christ, and one man brought sin into the world, therefor one man can take it away. That equation cannot be broken or altered.
Comment by the One banned
Jehu-
You need to study geology a bit more if you think that the fossil record should be ‘filled with transitional forms’. Fossilization is a rare event, geologically speaking, and doesn’t record every minute change in the evolution of a given species.
Here we go with the typical smug arrogance of the evolutionists. Just like smoking pot makes a person arrogant, smoking evolution makes them smug and superior. I know about fossilization, I also know the worthless excuses of the evolutionists. If evolution were true there ought to be hundreds if not thousands of MORE of transitional species preserved than those as recognized species. But if all the changes of the transitional forms were only soft tissue, then how the hell do evolutionists get the balls to proclaim they existed? Evolution is not falsifible and is a tautology. Yet amazingly the fossilization process only captures the far fewer number of determined species.
“And yet we still cannot get hybrid seeds.”
That’s funny, I buy hybrid seeds regularly, but then again, it’s a moot point biologically, and does nothing to further your argument.
Really? You found some tangelo seeds? Or are you talking about hybrid corn? There are no hybrid seeds of two distinct species unless they were genetically ENGINEERED (get it intelligence was involved) And don’t play your word games with me, I know how you will now go into scientific detail and talk about spotted gypsy moths and the lung fish etc, I have heard it all from you scientific jesters.
Go learn something about this theory you believe like a trained parrot, you know nothing of its weaknesses, and outright lies told to undergraduates. It is a political theory, stand up against it and see what happens even on a little blog like LGF who are NOT palentologists, or biologists. Ben Stein was accurate, you will be fired from your position at a Univ if you do not kiss evolutionary ass. Only a few big names can stay in Acadamia once they resist or publish against this theory. Evolutionists ARE the new inquisition, and they are LIARS and cowards, like Charles who allows no debate, and I am not talking from kooks either, I am talking about people like me that know what we are talking about and are trained in science and research. I posted links from scientist refuting the LGF viewpoint for which I was banned.
They could not answer my questions. Here is one for you O, knowledgeagle one, how did evolution plan for the entire bird, with hollow bones, feathers (that are incredibly complex) along with the fact that when a bird does an upstroke with his wings the fine wing muscles slighly twist the wing feathers at a slant to allow air to pass through the wing, then they shift to close the wing on the downstroke. All this had to come together at once for flight, in thousands of species of birds over and over. Gahhhh…I am sick of this bull shit. Don’t question me again until you can give me a reasonable explanation for symbiotic life involving two or more species.
And birds again, most of then have beaks that are specially DESIGNED to do specific functions, or to hunt for just a single species for food. Or explain the angler fish in the Mangrove swamps eats by shooting a stream of water out of its mouths and knocks insects sitting on low hanging branches into the water. How did this fish learn that light bends when it enters the water, so the insect is not where it appears, this fish must adjust for that fact to knock the insect off the branch. If he learned it how did he pass it on to his kids? Gahhh…Evolution takes all the wonder out of creation, and that is the point, make it all a dead machine, so men could then treat each other as so much fodder and gears for their systems.
Genesis 1:2 is “divine judgment”??? The verse speaks absolutely nothing of judgment, that is taking liberties with it in order to prop up and concept the bible just doesn’t put forth. I’ve never Yes the Gap theory creates conflicts that multiply farther down in scripture.
Genesis 1:2 is “divine judgment”??? The verse speaks absolutely nothing of judgment, that is taking liberties with it in order to prop up and concept the bible just doesn’t put forth. I’ve never quite understood why people are so intent on making a emphasis on something that is just not forthright in presentation in scripture…as if we need to ignore the plainly stated in order to hunt for something that may or may not be there. Is God trying to hide this from us or not? The only reason I can think of is because people feel the need to make some compromise with flawed dating methods and force it into scripture. Yes the Gap theory creates conflicts that multiply farther down in scripture and I have mentioned them, you when say that I’m not “cataloging” them I can only take that you are skipping over what I have said, because I have stated them.
Scripture definitively says sin & death entered the kosmos through Adam in Romans 5:12. If there was judgment before Adam was created for previous disobedience, that is a plain as day irreconcilable contradiction, saying something was destroyed & all life died because of previous sin. Sin already existed and this world was destroyed before sin entered creation through Adam’s fall? Sorry I cannot accept the gap theory based upon this.
Jesus said the creation of Adam & Eve was at the beginning in Matthew 19:4. If the gap theory is true, for Adam & Eve to be created at the beginning they would have to be billions of years old before they died! Sorry I cannot accept the gap theory based upon this.
How does the gap theory fit into Exodus 20:11? Days without any indication anywhere morphs from billions of years to singular day/night while the Hebrew uses the exact same word for day for all six mentioned? That is crazy confusion. Sorry I cannot accept the gap theory based upon this.
“Maw-lay” in the Hebrew never is used to mean “re-fill”. The “Replenish” concept used by gap theorists is solely based upon a mutation of the English language over the centuries. Hardly a sound method of rightly dividing scripture. Adam & Eve were commanded to be fruitful & multiply and fill the earth, because it was never filled before. Sorry I cannot accept the gap theory based upon this.
2nd Peter 3:3-7 says there is was only one flood of judgment, Noah’s. Yes that is specifically addressing Noah’s flood. If Genesis 1:2 was a flood of judgment and simply not part of the creation process of this planet…why would scripture completely neglect to tell us this? Its never mentioned anywhere when the topic of judgment is presented. No where. I have a very hard time believing that if some something so serious as previous creation of life had sinned unto God and He saw fit to utterly destroy it and start over….why on earth wouldn’t scripture just tell us about it with any manner of detail? That information would be extremely important to humanity. Plus the redundancy of God wiping out life with two similar judgments, yet failing to mention the first one when the topic of judgment comes up leads me to only believe it just simply wasn’t a judgment against disobedience.
“Whatever is happening here is showing the earth was shrouded in water and covered with water. That would have to mean something pretty unusual about the earth at that time.”
That is a complete assumption based upon what in scripture? Absolutely nothing. God is merely describing the process of how He made it, as stated in Genesis. When Noah’s flood happened “the fountains of the deep were broken up”…There was vast amounts of water in the earth. I submit it was part of God’s design of this planet to begin with.
“We know there was a mass extinction of animals about 10,000 years ago, placing it before Genesis 1:1.”
Now this one is even stranger. “Mass extinction” based upon what dating method? Before Genesis 1:1??? There was a mass extinction before life on this planet was created? The fossil record is merely a indication of life that was destroyed in Noah’s flood that wasn’t taken unto the ark.
Its all so simple, the six day of the “creative process” were all the same types of days, just as the Hebrew uses the exact same word [yom] for all of them. Quite strange for scripture to confuse us that yom could mean billions of years or a single day & night.
revparadigm
We will agree to disagree, nobody but a band of young earth creationists can accept your scenario, and as more and more evidence comes in for the age of the universe for the processes in stars, for galaxy formation, for formation of solar systems, you will become dismissed, not only by evolutionists but by everyone but your tribe. I suspect your read of the orginal Hebrew is something less astute than Pember who was a Hebrew scholar. The six days do NOT begin until after the first two verses of Genesis, when we already have a earth, so we must have already a sun.
This sort of reasoning does nothing but give amunition to LGF types and to evolutionists that can now paint everyone with this broad brush of total denial of scientific fact. In my opinion the young earth creationists are the opposite end of the scale as the evolutionists, and just as wrong.
The problem is you fear if you allow for real science it will somehow undermine the scriptures, it is actually a lack of faith. And the same problem when it was discovered that the earth orbits the sun, not vica versa. When science comes in with testable evidence and predicting math as with the big bang, you do well to pay attention. There is no way I will look at the Grand Canyon and think it was created in Noah’s flood, the idea is ridiculous to me, just as the evolutionists claim that random processess could produce intelligent and conscious thought.
It is by mathematical discovery that black holes were predicted, and then they are found. The background radiation from the big bang was predicted by mathematics a couple of decades before scientists that knew nothing of that math found the background radiation while working with microwave antennas at Bell Labs. And how does a young earther explain plate techtonics? I am not sure how Genesis is to be interpreted, but a direct literal interpretation makes no sense, just like Jesus saying you need to hate your father and mother in order to follow Him makes no sense without REVELATION from the Holy Spirit on what He was talking about.
For me I am waiting on the Holy Spirit until full revelation comes, until then I take science at its evidence concerning Genesis. I do not accept evolution because the evidence is NOT there, and it dismisses orginal sin. As far as judgment is concerned neither YOU or I know if there were pre-Adamic races that sinned, the Bible is just about the Human race, to assert you know is arrogance without proof. Just like nobody knows if there are other intelligent races God created on other planets…we do NOT know, we can only speculate until either God reveals to us it is so, or we meet up with some saucer dudes and exchange recipes.
Tex, I do agree with you more or less there, I just don’t believe in the failure of the science involved, though I’m no expert. Pre-history isn’t my realm. I just don’t believe in the “young earth” business and the taking of all of Genesis literally. I do, however, believe in the divine intervention you speak of. I think that this process of divinely guided evolution can be studied as well, even if at this point in time the two camps are determined to be diametrically opposed. Thanks for not insulting me for once though! LOL
I consider this a very civil debate without hard feelings Jehu
I certainly do not fear “real science” [real science? I haven't seen anything testable, observable, repeatable that would change my mind...theories do not sway me, literal facts do] in influencing my views, otherwise I would never consider myself earth as young earth creationist. When I look at the Grand Canyon I see all the more evidence of a cataclysmic event, that it was quickly formed by massive amount of water draining over the top of the land. It more absurd to say a river created it considering the beginning of the Canyon is younger than the end of it…the middle is higher than either end by thousands of feet. Rivers do not naturally carve out massive canyons over millions of years flowing backwards and up and over a considerable rise to cut through it.
I will never let so called science theories influence my interpretation of scripture, especially when they create issues that challenge uniformity of it, contradictions that require me to play games into saying “well it doesn’t mean what it says there even though its a definitive statement”. Bible haters have a field day with people like that and basically end up dictating the perimeters of scripture to them. Revealing of scripture by the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with what is presently popular in the science community, because every single super natural event in scripture would be attacked by the usual unbelieving standard designed according to natural law. They will deny supernatural every single time because there is zero faith required to seek God diligently, in order to please Him.
Interpreting scripture in a certain manner to appear more valid to the science community is very risky business.
“Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude. See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.”
Colossians 2:6-8
I don’t want to be a vigorous participant in these matters, but I do want to point out what I see as a fatal flaw in the approach taken by many who argue for ID. The approach is to adduce apparent problems in the predictions of evolution and then to indicate that this weakens or disproves evolution and reinforces some form of ID. This is just wrong, as ID is taken as the “default” position, the position that wins if evolution is weakened. But in fact, ID is not being tested at all by this approach; rather, evolution is being tested (if it is being tested by the “apparent problems”). If all the “problems” are sound, it does not follow that ID is right; it just follows that evolution isn’t right. That ID supporters do not have a third alternative handy does not mean that ID is the only thing left.
But let’s consider a direct prediction using ID as the theory being tested. One would expect that an intelligently designed creature would be efficiently designed for its purpose. And yet, there are tremendous inefficiencies in human design. The windpipe is too close to the esophagus, for example, thus leading to choking. The spine is vulnerable to the stresses of everyday locomotion. The birthing process is tremendously dangerous (and has become less so only with the advent of 20th century medicine). Is this the best a designer of supreme intelligence and capacity could do?
Another prediction: because each creature would be designed efficiently for its purpose, one would expect very substantial differences in the layout of bones, muscles. In fact, though, if one looks around, it will be obvious that differences in what would, evolutionarily, be closely related creatures are minimal: some bones are elongated, others appear fused (but still recognizable as originally separate bones); the same could be said for muscles. Why would the intelligent designer not plan “from the bottom up,” as this would create a much more effective outcome for whatever purpose was served? Surely we cannot blame “cognitive limitations,” given the intelligence of any designer who could do this work.
I hope some of you guys get my drift.
sk
I get your argument, not sure it is valid since we don’t know all the design parameters it is easy to find flaws. There are far to many specific examples of design in species for doing specific tasks. Take the human being, we are the only generalists, truly speaking, of the animal world. I can find lots of flaws with the human body, especially with my own, but given that you had to have a being that walked upright, with free hands, opposable thumbs, huge brain, etc, there has to be design compromises as every engineer knows (I am an engineer).
Evolution has so many problems that are just glossed over, I have alluded to some of them in my posts. Animal behavior is a whole world of problems for evolutionists that is rarely addressed. Here is one that just came up a few days ago and was on Drudge, only someone like me would notice it is a total contradiction of Darwin. Down in Argentina a dog was caught on traffic cams risking its life to drag its companion dog off the freeway where a car had hit it and disabled it, this makes no sense what so ever according to Darwin, and something ignored by Darwin but known even in his time, many examples of animals helping one another, even taking care of the maimed and infirm, and this observed in wild animals.
We will not have honest discussions about ID versus evolution until evolution is knocked off its pristine science perch and scientist are allowed to research and explore the claims of ID, as Ben Stein showed in his movie Expelled, you cannot get the research done because the adherents of evolution will not allow it, so they can then crow that ID does not have any peer reviewed articles…well duh! ID, even in its infancy, along with information theory are far more promising as an answer to all the flaws seen in evolution, than anything yet proposed.
I ask this of anyone that wants to think about it, how can evolution explain symbiotic life systems? Where two or more species are totally intertwined with each other and cannot survive without the other. How does two seperate species arrive at this point over time? Study the Yucca Moth and the Yucca Plant for an example. In that example the Yucca Moth has the only body shape that can pollinate the Yucca Plant, it lays its eggs in the plant, the larvae can only eat the flesh of the plant, the adult moth can only eat the nectar of the Yucca flower. It simply cannot come about without pre-planning, without a directing intelligence.
Jehu said:
“Here is one for you O, knowledgeagle one, how did evolution plan for the entire bird, with hollow bones, feathers (that are incredibly complex) along with the fact that when a bird does an upstroke with his wings the fine wing muscles slighly twist the wing feathers at a slant to allow air to pass through the wing, then they shift to close the wing on the downstroke. All this had to come together at once for flight, in thousands of species of birds over and over.”
Birds started flight ‘all at once’? Really? Did Archaeopteryx have the advanced features you describe? No. Hesperonis? Again, no. Those features evolved over time, just as birds also lost their teeth over time. Evolution doesn’t ‘plan’ anything, that is an ID belief, not science. And if that’s your argument, explain to me the penguin- remember, not all present day birds fly.
“Gahhhh…I am sick of this bull shit. Don’t question me again until you can give me a reasonable explanation for symbiotic life involving two or more species.”
How about symbiotic parasitism? Of course, I’m now thinking that your definition of ‘a reasonable explanation’ is one that proves ID, and that I can not give you.
You have your theory, and I have mine. One is based on blind belief, the other on scientific evidence. Science will never overturn blind belief, and blind belief will never overturn scientific evidence. I’ll stick with the evidence.
132. I disagree with your characterization here-
One of the Banned said,
“One is based on blind belief, the other on scientific evidence. Science will never overturn blind belief”
I’d say that evolution requires some blind faith, and that ID/Creationism is not wholly without evidence or scientific backing.
I’m not into arguing the particulars, but I do question people’s world views, how their world views color their other stances, and in this case, trying to depict your debate opponents (or their beliefs) as being totally un-scientific, while maintaining all the while that YOURS is the only view that is objective / has evidence/ is rational / doesn’t rely on faith at all, etc.
#121 One of the Banned wrote (of those who reject Macro Evolution / Darwinism),
Wow. How smugly arrogant. (I wrote that before seeing post 124, too!)
#116 One of the Banned
The fact that you, a pro-Macro Evolutionist, are permitted to post here, and your posts aren’t deleted, should be proof enough to you that this is not an echo chamber.
Furthermore, among those here who reject Macro Evolution, there has been disagreement, even in this very thread (especially between the Gap Theory advocates and the YECs).
I also don’t think your thinking process is straight, One of the Banned; you wrote,
One of the Banned, if a bunch of Anti-Macro Evolutionists/ Anti-Darwinsts get banned from a blog (LGF) for rejecting ME/Darwinism (as many of us were) and go form a new blog (LGF2) where they’re free to discuss their views on ME/Darwinism, of course many at the new blog are going to hold similar views – how could you expect otherwise?
The natural outcome of Johnson banning Anti-ME/Darwinists who then form their own blog is going to result in like-minded Anti-ME/Darwinist folks coming together. (But notice, again, that you, a pro-ME/Darwinist, are still allowed to post here.)
If Johnson had banned everyone from his blog who loves dogs, for example, and some of those dog lovers formed a new blog, of course you could expect to see a lot of those banned people posting on the new blog about how much they love dogs.
That doesn’t necessarily make it an echo chamber, nor does it mean that cat lovers are not welcome to post there, too.
But then in post #121, you kind of contradicted yourself when you wrote,
Given post #121, your post of #116 is pointless and without merit.
From post #89,
Besides, how can she be ashamed to “call herself a Christian” when she isn’t one in the first place??
Reminds me of these verses:
See Matthew 10:32-33:
[Jesus Christ speaking:] “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
See Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26:
[Jesus Christ speaking:] “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”"
Lex, #98
For a nice summarization of the problem, please see post above in this thread, #41.
For another brief outline of theistic evolution’s problems, please see this page:
Ten Dangers of Theistic Evolution
There have been more detailed rebuttals to theistic evolution, but I think the link above is a nice, short introduction to it.
#100 Lex wrote,
That sounds a tad like modalism to me.
From carm.org:
Lex in post 100:
Jesus did not speak in parables only.
Further, Jesus explained to his disciples what the parables meant, especially when they seemed confused about them, or when they admitted to being confused by the parables.
The parables were meant to convey literal truths about God and God’s character.
P.S. One of the Banned wrote,
Rejecting Macro Evolution is not tantamount to being “Anti Science,” despite what “the Chuckster” says over at LGF.
I reject Macro Evolution, but I am not “anti science,” nor do I hate science.
I do find science (like math) to be incredibly boring, but I am not “against” it.
Rainyday-
Evolutionary theory is just that, a scientific theory. It is objective, it has scientific evidence to support it, it is rational and logical, and it doesn’t rely on faith to explain it, only the scientific method.
Creationists and ID proponents do use snippets of science to justify their ‘theories’, but their arguments invariably turn back to faith when the actual science fails to live up to their expectations.
And so far, the opposition views here have all been based on poor or incomplete scientific evidence, the Bible, or just a belief in that’s how things must have happened because present day organisms are just too complex to not have a divine origin.
Whew…If that ain’t a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is!
#137, Bah ha ha ha! That is rich! Johnson calling out Creationists for using ad hominem, when he and his cronies (hello Killgore!) have done nothing but!
#136 One of the banned wrote,
Let me find some quotes for you to consider.
Because we can only place one link per post, I’ll have to place other links in separate posts after this one (if I post more links; I might not, I dunno).
Is Science Becoming Unscientific?
Excerpts:
#136 One of the banned
I might have to get off the computer in a bit, so I don’t know if I can post any more, but for now…
The Limitations of Science and Its Method
Speaking of smug,
I think my time not only more appropriate, but more clever.
Yet somehow as an illiterate, I was able to make it into medical school, while disagreeing with most of your pet theories. Amazing, isn’t it? To me, with that kind of comment, Charles should have kept you as an operative…you’d fit right in.
From above: ooops…make that name, not time. Not sure where that came from.
Arrogant One said:
Birds started flight ‘all at once’? Really? Did Archaeopteryx have the advanced features you describe? No. Hesperonis? Again, no. Those features evolved over time, just as birds also lost their teeth over time. Evolution doesn’t ‘plan’ anything, that is an ID belief, not science. And if that’s your argument, explain to me the penguin- remember, not all present day birds fly.
Yes one day some bird was the FIRST one to fly, and Archaeopteryx is only labeled as a transitory species on the way to true bird, even evolutionists disagree. Some say it is its own disctinct species. And where are the series of fossils for ANY species showing these slow changes? And how do you answer hidden problems such as the acquiring of thermoregulation in birds, when reptiles (birds ancestors, we are told, are cold blooded) These are not small little problems to be dismissed by evolutionary ignorance. The problems for the functioning of whole organisms in concert with hundreds of complex feedback systems and communication among organs and directed will and consciousness can hardly be addressed by the idiot claims of faith-based evolutionists like you.
“Gahhhh…I am sick of this bull shit. Don’t question me again until you can give me a reasonable explanation for symbiotic life involving two or more species.”
How about symbiotic parasitism? Of course, I’m now thinking that your definition of ‘a reasonable explanation’ is one that proves ID, and that I can not give you.
What about it dumb ass? It is even a worse problem for evolutionists since there are thousands of parasitic relationships in nature, where the parasite confers nothing but damage to the host, but the parasite cannot live outside of its host, is specifically designed in its whole life cycle to fit the host. The ideas that thousands of parasites gained these abilities and life cycles via random mutations is more laughable than the earth rests on turtles.
Now without quacking out something from a text book YOU yourself imagine how symbiotic relationships arose in nature without smuggling in any reference or inference to teleology. Try thinking YOURSELF for five minutes instead of smuggly quoting some evolutionist quacking points, or are you afraid you cannot think?
Baloney; that is not what is continually done here. I’ve pointed out using genetic compatibility, the “flaws” with natural selection on more than one occasion. After reading your “proof”, you’re just spouting the same old tired rhetoric of the Darwinian crowd that I rejected from college.
But I have a question. Since it is your theory, shouldn’t you be answering the questions? That is the way science works.
Tex-
With your superior knowledge of science, surely you can debunk my statements regarding evolution, yet you choose instead to compare me to an LGF ‘operative’?
Medical School, eh? You’ll be a Doctor at what, 55? Good luck with that, and I sincerely mean it.
Jehu-
I’ve tried to be civil, and answer your questions. Yet you stoop to personal attacks?
/Not an echo chamber, eh?
#145 One of the Banned
Did you see my posts #138, 139 above?
It’s not an echo chamber just because one guy here calls you names.
(I personally have not called you any names. I did criticize your behavior / attitude in one post, but not you yourself. Criticizing someone’s ideas or attitude is not ‘ad hominem.’)
I am not happy that some people in this thread have insulted you by calling you names and have been rude to you, and I am sorry that they have done so.
I do not condone their behavior, especially since the Pro-Macro-Evolutionists at LGF do that to the ME-dissenters there.
I know what it’s like to be treated like trash just because of my views on evolution, so I try not to treat other people like trash when they disagree with me about it.
For the folks above who were chatting about the Eye of God, I found a link about it you might want to check out:
Eye of God page
banned one
I call you names because you come on with a smug arrogance, pretend I know science at least as much as you and I will desist. Come at me with smug superiority and squack evolution talking points at me then I will call you an asshat or anything else that comes to mind. And what I am doing is MILD in comparison to LGF or anyplace where I have debated evolutionists. You want to talk to me then think. Think for yourself about what I proposed, and if you cannot think of a mechanism that would give us symbiotic life systems, then you are an unthinking follower of evolution, you are just mimicking what sounds reasonable to you at first blush. Learn to think, it is not automatic and you have to work at it and you have to CHALLENGE assumptions of those that are in authority.
These picture from space are beyond cool. Now our scientific jesters would just go on and on about exploding stars, gas clouds and refracted light. But people that love God, marvel at the beauty. I sometimes think an evolutionists would examine paint chips from the Cistene Chapel and critisize Michaelangelo’s choice of ingredients. Whereas believers marvel at what the artist brought forth.
I called you an operative because of you’re approach, not because of your science. And why would I choose to debunk what you say (which I just briefly skimmed because I’ve read all of it before)? It wouldn’t change your opinion, because again I say this whole argument has little to do with science. I say natural selection leading to new species, for the most part, a farce; you say it isn’t and that’s fine. I think your science is bad; you think it is solid. But once again, you avoided my real question. It’s your responsibility to prove your theory. I will ask my questions, and you answer them. That’s the way the scientific method works, is it not?
Actually 56. Good guess. Twenty plus years of corporate America allowed me just enough to pursue it. The way I look at it, why is age relevant when you’re chasing a dream? And retirement ain’t what it is cracked up to be or I wouldn’t be on a blog wasting time in boredom. You can only golf so much or watch so many movies before it becomes routine. Second, the way it’s going, we’re all going to be working until the day we die (I think I’m worth 60% of what I was this time last year) and that’s okay with me because I do better when I’m busy.
I’m really not trying to make enemies – I’m just saying I don’t find this board an echo chamber like you do. Common bonds, yes. But every blog generally shares opinion.
Great comments here, I am very glad that you guys all got banned (I was banned once upon a time as well, I think it was for a post proclaiming Jesus as the only way even
), this was my prayer to our Lord Jesus that the Christians should be banned so they wouldn’t go back to that God hater site so you all could actually see the type of spirit behind mr.Johnson.
I mean this mocking they conduct there it should be no surprise for anyone that has actually read the Bible.
Jude 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Jude 1:16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.
Jude 1:17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
Jude 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
I mean these verses from brother Jude is a clear reflection of the lgf crowd.
Now you will have more time to actually spread the good news to those that want to hear and not just to those on lgf that obviously don’t want to hear, they’re anathema maranatha anyway, not much that can be done for them.
You’ve also made great points about the cult mindset of the LGF, glad you guys see it, some of you had a hard time seeing it at first it seemed when I used to read your comments over there, but now apparently Lord Jesus has opened your eyes as per request
I mean if that crowd don’t want to go to heaven well then it’s time to go try to win some other people to the Lord Jesus.
1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?
1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1 Corinthians 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
Born Again Bible Believer from Sweden:
Welcome! I am glad you found us. I am one of the admins here so feel free to make yourself at home.
savage
Oh I must comment some on the evolution attitude on things.
They blame others of indoctrinating their children into belief in all sorts of things, but they themselves indoctrinated me into atheism and evolutionism as a young impressionable child some 25 years ago.
Utter hypocrisy from those liars, I still have yet to find a person that did come to belief in evolutionism that wasn’t indoctrinated into it in a public school.
I was and all my friends was also, none of my old friends are Christian, they’re all staunch evolutionists because of this indoctrination at a young age.
To that add different satanic belief structures that they now hold which is stemming from the root of their belief in evolutionism that the socialists indoctrinated all us swedish children with.
This should ring a bell:
Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
I would not have departed from evolutionism if it wasn’t for the Lord Jesus Christ actually destroying that truly retarded belief.
Great, thanks savage, remember you posting a lot of comments over there at lgf.
I used the handle: Against Socialism over at lgf.