| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IknowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
02 Dec 2003 10:40:50 AM |
| Object: |
Designed Creation |
Designed Creation
"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be
wise? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the
eye, shall He not see? Psalm 94:8-9
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness. If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and a
clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker[this is difficult to comprehend to many in these ngs-but I shall
go slow and use little words hoping that some may get the drift!]. "The
hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them."
Proverbs 20:12
The most basic of all scientific laws-the law of cause and effect(no
effect greater than its cause)-becomes shear nonsense if the cosmos is the
product of chaos and the universe "evolved" by chance and luck.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is not God." Psalm 14:1
Every creature[taken from the verb "create"], from the single cell amoeba
to the amazing human body, bears the imprint of intricate planning and
construction. The false idea that such complex structures could "evolve"
by random mutations and natural selection is simply a measure of the
stupidity of human rebellion and the destructiveness of humanistic
reasoning. Such things never happen in the real world, and there is no
real scientific evidence whatever of "vertical" evolution from one kind to
another higher kind. The only genuine evidence for evolution is the fact
that the leaders of psuedo-intellectualism believe it, and the only reason
they and their toadys believe it is their frantic desire to escape God.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:12
The ear did not "evolve"; it was planted(the inner ear is the first organ
formed or "planted" in the embryo and the last organ to die). The eye did
not "happen by chance"; it was formed. Every wise man and woman will say
with the psalmist, "I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully
made: marvelous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." Psalm
139:14
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
.
|
|
| User: "peter legge" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
02 Dec 2003 05:23:09 PM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-0212030840500001@pm8-24.kalama.com...
Designed Creation
"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be
wise? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the
eye, shall He not see? Psalm 94:8-9
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness. If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and a
clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker[this is difficult to comprehend to many in these ngs-but I shall
go slow and use little words hoping that some may get the drift!]. "The
hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them."
Proverbs 20:12
The most basic of all scientific laws-the law of cause and effect(no
effect greater than its cause)-becomes shear nonsense if the cosmos is the
product of chaos and the universe "evolved" by chance and luck.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is not God." Psalm 14:1
Every creature[taken from the verb "create"], from the single cell amoeba
to the amazing human body, bears the imprint of intricate planning and
construction. The false idea that such complex structures could "evolve"
by random mutations and natural selection is simply a measure of the
stupidity of human rebellion and the destructiveness of humanistic
reasoning. Such things never happen in the real world, and there is no
real scientific evidence whatever of "vertical" evolution from one kind to
another higher kind. The only genuine evidence for evolution is the fact
that the leaders of psuedo-intellectualism believe it, and the only reason
they and their toadys believe it is their frantic desire to escape God.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:12
The ear did not "evolve"; it was planted(the inner ear is the first organ
formed or "planted" in the embryo and the last organ to die). The eye did
not "happen by chance"; it was formed. Every wise man and woman will say
with the psalmist, "I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully
made: marvelous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." Psalm
139:14
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
The Psalmist was more wise than all the 'scientists' of today when he
said....
139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made:
marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well.
Good article....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lane Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 01:03:33 AM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-0212030840500001@pm8-24.kalama.com...
Designed Creation
"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be
wise? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the
eye, shall He not see? Psalm 94:8-9
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness. If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and a
clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker[this is difficult to comprehend to many in these ngs-but I shall
go slow and use little words hoping that some may get the drift!]. "The
hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them."
Proverbs 20:12
but he couldn't have done it with evolution ? Are you so knowledgeable that
you claim to know not only what your god did but how he did it?
The most basic of all scientific laws-the law of cause and effect(no
effect greater than its cause)-becomes shear nonsense if the cosmos is the
product of chaos and the universe "evolved" by chance and luck.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is not God." Psalm 14:1
Not by chance but by the natural laws of the universe, this could also be a
way a god could it.
Every creature[taken from the verb "create"], from the single cell amoeba
to the amazing human body, bears the imprint of intricate planning and
construction. The false idea that such complex structures could "evolve"
by random mutations and natural selection is simply a measure of the
stupidity of human rebellion and the destructiveness of humanistic
reasoning. Such things never happen in the real world, and there is no
real scientific evidence whatever of "vertical" evolution from one kind to
another higher kind. The only genuine evidence for evolution is the fact
that the leaders of psuedo-intellectualism believe it, and the only reason
they and their toadys believe it is their frantic desire to escape God.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:12
But there is unlike god evidence for evolution. The fossil record fits with
the idea of evolution but not one creation story.
The ear did not "evolve"; it was planted(the inner ear is the first organ
formed or "planted" in the embryo and the last organ to die). The eye did
not "happen by chance"; it was formed. Every wise man and woman will say
with the psalmist, "I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully
made: marvelous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well." Psalm
139:14
Made by evolution.
Lane
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
02 Dec 2003 07:46:59 PM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-0212030840500001@pm8-24.kalama.com:
Designed Creation
"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye
be wise? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed
the eye, shall He not see? Psalm 94:8-9
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness. If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and
a clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker[this is difficult to comprehend to many in these ngs-but I
shall go slow and use little words hoping that some may get the
drift!]. "The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even
both of them." Proverbs 20:12
And the ability of biological evolution to produce extremely complex
organs and systems surely requires an evolution-maker. Your deity seems
to be unable to compete with the real one.
The most basic of all scientific laws-the law of cause and effect(no
effect greater than its cause)-becomes shear nonsense if the cosmos is
the product of chaos and the universe "evolved" by chance and luck.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is not God." Psalm 14:1
And another fool said "I am God" and proceeded to read scripture in the
most narrow literal sense and insist that people who investigate the
physical universe are liars and charlatans because they show the fool's
false prophecies based on his false god to be false.
Every creature[taken from the verb "create"], from the single cell
amoeba to the amazing human body, bears the imprint of intricate
planning and construction. The false idea that such complex
Or of being exquisitely adapted by evolutionary processes.
structures could "evolve" by random mutations and natural selection is
simply a measure of the stupidity of human rebellion and the
destructiveness of humanistic reasoning. Such things never happen in
And now you descend into stupidity yourself, thinking that because you
say something, it is actually true. How do you KNOW that it is a false
idea that random mutations and natural selection can produce complex
organs. Have you seen this writ in stone somewhere or did the fake
priest in the grey flannel suit tell you this on Sunday?
the real world, and there is no real scientific evidence whatever of
"vertical" evolution from one kind to another higher kind. The only
genuine evidence for evolution is the fact that the leaders of
psuedo-intellectualism believe it, and the only reason they and their
toadys believe it is their frantic desire to escape God. "Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:12
This is simply a lie. Why do you lie in God's name. God does not WANT
you to sin in His name. There is plenty of physical evidence for
evolution. How do YOU explain the FACT that the human body cannot
produce vitamin-C in the liver for the precise same reason that chimps
cannot do it? Note that 3 of the 4 genes involved in this system in all
mammals who have it are present and working in both the chimp and the
human genomes. What is YOUR explanation for this "coincidence?" The
damaged gene is clearly the result of a mutation (more than one actually,
since once damaged it was not subject to selection when further mutations
occurred).
The ear did not "evolve"; it was planted(the inner ear is the first
organ formed or "planted" in the embryo and the last organ to die).
You're blathering.
The eye did not "happen by chance"; it was formed. Every wise man and
woman will say with the psalmist, "I will praise Thee; for I am
fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are Thy works; and that my
soul knoweth right well." Psalm 139:14
Every wise man knoweth that God hath said "thou shalt not bear false
witness." But every creationist seems not to care.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
02 Dec 2003 02:50:30 PM |
|
|
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness.
And your evidence in support of your claim is...?
If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and a
clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker...
....and by the same reasoning the designer demands a designer-maker.
OUCH. Tough luck, I-know-***** - you lose again.
The ear did not "evolve"; it was planted(the inner ear is the first organ
formed or "planted" in the embryo and the last organ to die). The eye did
not "happen by chance"; it was formed.
I could demand evidence in support of this too, but after you so
wonderfully debunked yourself above, I can spare myself the effort.
Gee, looks like I have to thank you...
UNWRITTEN RULES OF FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans
for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will
for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information
in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you
don't
have that right anyhow.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
02 Dec 2003 05:08:21 PM |
|
|
I see you used verses to show how science is wrong which never claims to
be absolutely correct. Science is about using what we know today using
observant evidence to come up with theories that are kept open to be
proved wrong. But what you fail to understand is that you make a
stronger argument against creation. Do you see this?
You're trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible. Can't do that. That
would be like me saying I can prove Peter Pan exists because I've read
Captain Hook.
I see by your screen name that you know Him. I like you to tell me how
without resorting to the typical answer I've received from others. Such
as, I feel he's in my life and helps me when I got the holy spirit that
guides me through life. Your life may have changed for the better by
thinking this but does not prove it was God who did it.
IknowHimDoYou wrote:
Designed Creation
"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be
wise? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the
eye, shall He not see? Psalm 94:8-9
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness. If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and a
clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker[this is difficult to comprehend to many in these ngs-but I
shall
go slow and use little words hoping that some may get the drift!]. "The
hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them."
Proverbs 20:12
The most basic of all scientific laws-the law of cause and effect(no
effect greater than its cause)-becomes shear nonsense if the cosmos
is the
product of chaos and the universe "evolved" by chance and luck.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is not God." Psalm 14:1
Every creature[taken from the verb "create"], from the single cell amoeba
to the amazing human body, bears the imprint of intricate planning and
construction. The false idea that such complex structures could "evolve"
by random mutations and natural selection is simply a measure of the
stupidity of human rebellion and the destructiveness of humanistic
reasoning. Such things never happen in the real world, and there is no
real scientific evidence whatever of "vertical" evolution from one
kind to
another higher kind. The only genuine evidence for evolution is the fact
that the leaders of psuedo-intellectualism believe it, and the only
reason
they and their toadys believe it is their frantic desire to escape God.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:12
The ear did not "evolve"; it was planted(the inner ear is the first organ
formed or "planted" in the embryo and the last organ to die). The
eye did
not "happen by chance"; it was formed. Every wise man and woman will say
with the psalmist, "I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and
wonderfully
made: marvelous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."
Psalm
139:14
.
|
|
|
| User: "martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
02 Dec 2003 11:37:23 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:FX8zb.1697$Qd6.1554@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I see you used verses to show how science is wrong which never claims to
be absolutely correct. Science is about using what we know today using
observant evidence to come up with theories that are kept open to be
proved wrong. But what you fail to understand is that you make a
stronger argument against creation. Do you see this?
You're trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible. Can't do that. That
would be like me saying I can prove Peter Pan exists because I've read
Captain Hook.
Ob Quirk
Shouldn't that be "I can prove Captain Hook exists because I've read Peter
Pan"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 01:26:14 AM |
|
|
martin wrote:
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:FX8zb.1697$Qd6.1554@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I see you used verses to show how science is wrong which never claims to
be absolutely correct. Science is about using what we know today using
observant evidence to come up with theories that are kept open to be
proved wrong. But what you fail to understand is that you make a
stronger argument against creation. Do you see this?
You're trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible. Can't do that. That
would be like me saying I can prove Peter Pan exists because I've read
Captain Hook.
Ob Quirk
Shouldn't that be "I can prove Captain Hook exists because I've read Peter
Pan"?
No the original was called Captain Hook. And is this all you have to
comment on, my analogy? Oh my!
.
|
|
|
| User: "martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 05:38:47 AM |
|
|
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:qegzb.2248$Qd6.239@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
martin wrote:
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:FX8zb.1697$Qd6.1554@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I see you used verses to show how science is wrong which never claims to
be absolutely correct. Science is about using what we know today using
observant evidence to come up with theories that are kept open to be
proved wrong. But what you fail to understand is that you make a
stronger argument against creation. Do you see this?
You're trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible. Can't do that. That
would be like me saying I can prove Peter Pan exists because I've read
Captain Hook.
Ob Quirk
Shouldn't that be "I can prove Captain Hook exists because I've read
Peter
Pan"?
No the original was called Captain Hook. And is this all you have to
comment on, my analogy? Oh my!
You're wrong
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060563079/qid=1070451028/sr=8-8/ref=sr_8_8/103-5846725-2198225?v=glance&n=507846
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C265324B6
Peter Pan by J M Barrie first performed in 1904, and I believe the first
edition book was about 1911.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 06:59:15 AM |
|
|
Interestingly enough when I look at this thread I see "Steve"
"Martin" and "Lewis". Do you suppose that was designed? Or just
accidental humor?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 07:21:45 AM |
|
|
What I find interesting is that you choose to waste your time with a
smart ***** reply instead of discussing the actual topic like an adult.
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Interestingly enough when I look at this thread I see "Steve"
"Martin" and "Lewis". Do you suppose that was designed? Or just
accidental humor?
.
|
|
|
| User: "martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 02:22:58 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:Jrlzb.2315$Oe5.937@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
What I find interesting is that you choose to waste your time with a
smart ***** reply instead of discussing the actual topic like an adult.
it WAS an ob. quirk.
You were factually wrong. Get over it
damn, I make them all the time and laugh them off. You really are a moron if
you can't accept you were wrong.
So, shall we try again?
What was the title of Barrie's book?
Of course not, becaue you are a frigging ignorant moron, who refuses to
accept he is wrong. Accept an Ob.Quirk for what it is, changing a minor
fault for your information.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 07:55:33 AM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Steve
<nope@nope.com>:
What I find interesting is that you choose to waste your time with a
smart ***** reply instead of discussing the actual topic like an adult.
You are having a discussion on the appropriate name of Peter Pan
and you want me to discuss like an adult? So you use the term
"smart *****" to show that you are an adult? I saw something funny
and I commented on it. I am sorry that you don't have a sense of
humor. (And/or don't know who Martin and Lewis were.)
Matt Silberstein wrote:
Interestingly enough when I look at this thread I see "Steve"
"Martin" and "Lewis". Do you suppose that was designed? Or just
accidental humor?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 09:10:22 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Steve
<nope@nope.com>:
What I find interesting is that you choose to waste your time with a
smart ***** reply instead of discussing the actual topic like an adult.
You are having a discussion on the appropriate name of Peter Pan
and you want me to discuss like an adult? So you use the term
"smart *****" to show that you are an adult? I saw something funny
and I commented on it. I am sorry that you don't have a sense of
humor. (And/or don't know who Martin and Lewis were.)
I guess you missed my replies to Martin. I tried to steer the discussion
back to the topic.
I'm sorry you've resorting to assumptions about me. No reason to start
swinging your Bible at me ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 02:25:19 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:y1nzb.2409$Oe5.48@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Steve
<nope@nope.com>:
What I find interesting is that you choose to waste your time with a
smart ***** reply instead of discussing the actual topic like an adult.
You are having a discussion on the appropriate name of Peter Pan
and you want me to discuss like an adult? So you use the term
"smart *****" to show that you are an adult? I saw something funny
and I commented on it. I am sorry that you don't have a sense of
humor. (And/or don't know who Martin and Lewis were.)
I guess you missed my replies to Martin. I tried to steer the discussion
back to the topic.
you were wrong! get over it loser.
Geez. An ob. quirk is supposed to be funny. So tell me who wrote Peter Pan.
Or more to the point, who wrote Captain Hook?
go on, give me a cite. ***** you're a looser
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 09:15:09 AM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Steve
<nope@nope.com>:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Steve
<nope@nope.com>:
What I find interesting is that you choose to waste your time with a
smart ***** reply instead of discussing the actual topic like an adult.
You are having a discussion on the appropriate name of Peter Pan
and you want me to discuss like an adult? So you use the term
"smart *****" to show that you are an adult? I saw something funny
and I commented on it. I am sorry that you don't have a sense of
humor. (And/or don't know who Martin and Lewis were.)
I guess you missed my replies to Martin.
I missed all of the content. I saw the names and found it
amusing. Again, I am sorry you don't have a sense of humor.
I tried to steer the discussion
back to the topic.
I'm sorry you've resorting to assumptions about me. No reason to start
swinging your Bible at me ;-)
How have I started swinging my Bible at you? Please tell me more
and try to avoid resorting to assumptions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 09:20:32 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Steve
<nope@nope.com>:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Steve
<nope@nope.com>:
What I find interesting is that you choose to waste your time with a
smart ***** reply instead of discussing the actual topic like an adult.
You are having a discussion on the appropriate name of Peter Pan
and you want me to discuss like an adult? So you use the term
"smart *****" to show that you are an adult? I saw something funny
and I commented on it. I am sorry that you don't have a sense of
humor. (And/or don't know who Martin and Lewis were.)
I guess you missed my replies to Martin.
I missed all of the content. I saw the names and found it
amusing. Again, I am sorry you don't have a sense of humor.
I tried to steer the discussion
back to the topic.
I'm sorry you've resorting to assumptions about me. No reason to start
swinging your Bible at me ;-)
How have I started swinging my Bible at you? Please tell me more
and try to avoid resorting to assumptions.
LOL....I said that jokingly to show my sense of humor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 02:26:09 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:4bnzb.2413$Oe5.2176@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Steve
<nope@nope.com>:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Steve
<nope@nope.com>:
What I find interesting is that you choose to waste your time with a
smart ***** reply instead of discussing the actual topic like an adult.
You are having a discussion on the appropriate name of Peter Pan
and you want me to discuss like an adult? So you use the term
"smart *****" to show that you are an adult? I saw something funny
and I commented on it. I am sorry that you don't have a sense of
humor. (And/or don't know who Martin and Lewis were.)
I guess you missed my replies to Martin.
I missed all of the content. I saw the names and found it
amusing. Again, I am sorry you don't have a sense of humor.
I tried to steer the discussion
back to the topic.
I'm sorry you've resorting to assumptions about me. No reason to start
swinging your Bible at me ;-)
How have I started swinging my Bible at you? Please tell me more
and try to avoid resorting to assumptions.
LOL....I said that jokingly to show my sense of humor.
shame you don't have one when proven wrong :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 04:59:02 PM |
|
|
martin wrote:
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:4bnzb.2413$Oe5.2176@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Matt Silberstein wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Steve
<nope@nope.com>:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from Steve
<nope@nope.com>:
What I find interesting is that you choose to waste your time with a
smart ***** reply instead of discussing the actual topic like an adult.
You are having a discussion on the appropriate name of Peter Pan
and you want me to discuss like an adult? So you use the term
"smart *****" to show that you are an adult? I saw something funny
and I commented on it. I am sorry that you don't have a sense of
humor. (And/or don't know who Martin and Lewis were.)
I guess you missed my replies to Martin.
I missed all of the content. I saw the names and found it
amusing. Again, I am sorry you don't have a sense of humor.
I tried to steer the discussion
back to the topic.
I'm sorry you've resorting to assumptions about me. No reason to start
swinging your Bible at me ;-)
How have I started swinging my Bible at you? Please tell me more
and try to avoid resorting to assumptions.
LOL....I said that jokingly to show my sense of humor.
shame you don't have one when proven wrong :)
I'm playing the theist role today. I'm never wrong! LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 07:19:03 AM |
|
|
martin wrote:
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:qegzb.2248$Qd6.239@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
martin wrote:
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:FX8zb.1697$Qd6.1554@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I see you used verses to show how science is wrong which never claims to
be absolutely correct. Science is about using what we know today using
observant evidence to come up with theories that are kept open to be
proved wrong. But what you fail to understand is that you make a
stronger argument against creation. Do you see this?
You're trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible. Can't do that. That
would be like me saying I can prove Peter Pan exists because I've read
Captain Hook.
Ob Quirk
Shouldn't that be "I can prove Captain Hook exists because I've read
Peter
Pan"?
No the original was called Captain Hook. And is this all you have to
comment on, my analogy? Oh my!
You're wrong
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060563079/qid=1070451028/sr=8-8/ref=sr_8_8/103-5846725-2198225?v=glance&n=507846
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C265324B6
Peter Pan by J M Barrie first performed in 1904, and I believe the first
edition book was about 1911.
Who cares. That wasn't the point of my reply. Either way the analogy
works, correct?
.
|
|
|
| User: "martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 02:28:13 PM |
|
|
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:bplzb.2314$Oe5.1223@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
martin wrote:
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:qegzb.2248$Qd6.239@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
martin wrote:
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:FX8zb.1697$Qd6.1554@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I see you used verses to show how science is wrong which never claims
to
be absolutely correct. Science is about using what we know today using
observant evidence to come up with theories that are kept open to be
proved wrong. But what you fail to understand is that you make a
stronger argument against creation. Do you see this?
You're trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible. Can't do that.
That
would be like me saying I can prove Peter Pan exists because I've read
Captain Hook.
Ob Quirk
Shouldn't that be "I can prove Captain Hook exists because I've read
Peter
Pan"?
No the original was called Captain Hook. And is this all you have to
comment on, my analogy? Oh my!
You're wrong
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060563079/qid=1070451028/sr=8-8/ref=sr_8_8/103-5846725-2198225?v=glance&n=507846
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C265324B6
Peter Pan by J M Barrie first performed in 1904, and I believe the first
edition book was about 1911.
Who cares. That wasn't the point of my reply. Either way the analogy
works, correct?
it WAS an Ob. Quirk.
geez you are SO sensitive. And tried to argue with my post that you were
correct.
Get over it. You were wrong. So, provide your reference for "Captain Hook"
Oh you can't, in that case you are a fucking looser with no sense of humour!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 04:56:00 PM |
|
|
martin wrote:
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:bplzb.2314$Oe5.1223@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
martin wrote:
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:qegzb.2248$Qd6.239@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
martin wrote:
"Steve" <nope@nope.com> wrote in message
news:FX8zb.1697$Qd6.1554@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I see you used verses to show how science is wrong which never claims
to
be absolutely correct. Science is about using what we know today using
observant evidence to come up with theories that are kept open to be
proved wrong. But what you fail to understand is that you make a
stronger argument against creation. Do you see this?
You're trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible. Can't do that.
That
would be like me saying I can prove Peter Pan exists because I've read
Captain Hook.
Ob Quirk
Shouldn't that be "I can prove Captain Hook exists because I've read
Peter
Pan"?
No the original was called Captain Hook. And is this all you have to
comment on, my analogy? Oh my!
You're wrong
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060563079/qid=1070451028/sr=8-8/ref=sr_8_8/103-5846725-2198225?v=glance&n=507846
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C265324B6
Peter Pan by J M Barrie first performed in 1904, and I believe the first
edition book was about 1911.
Who cares. That wasn't the point of my reply. Either way the analogy
works, correct?
it WAS an Ob. Quirk.
geez you are SO sensitive. And tried to argue with my post that you were
correct.
Get over it. You were wrong. So, provide your reference for "Captain Hook"
Oh you can't, in that case you are a fucking looser with no sense of humour!
Once again who cares. BTW I'm laughing my ***** off at your replies LOL
And I'm the loser with no sense of humor? ROFL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IknowHimDoYou" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 10:42:45 AM |
|
|
Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so...
In article <FX8zb.1697$Qd6.1554@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Steve
<nope@nope.com> wrote:
I see you used verses to show how science is wrong which never claims to
be absolutely correct. Science is about using what we know today using
observant evidence to come up with theories that are kept open to be
proved wrong. But what you fail to understand is that you make a
stronger argument against creation. Do you see this?
You're trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible. Can't do that. That
would be like me saying I can prove Peter Pan exists because I've read
Captain Hook.
I see by your screen name that you know Him. I like you to tell me how
without resorting to the typical answer I've received from others. Such
as, I feel he's in my life and helps me when I got the holy spirit that
guides me through life. Your life may have changed for the better by
thinking this but does not prove it was God who did it.
IknowHimDoYou wrote:
Designed Creation
"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be
wise? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the
eye, shall He not see? Psalm 94:8-9
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness. If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and a
clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker[this is difficult to comprehend to many in these ngs-but I
shall
go slow and use little words hoping that some may get the drift!]. "The
hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them."
Proverbs 20:12
The most basic of all scientific laws-the law of cause and effect(no
effect greater than its cause)-becomes shear nonsense if the cosmos
is the
product of chaos and the universe "evolved" by chance and luck.
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is not God." Psalm 14:1
Every creature[taken from the verb "create"], from the single cell amoeba
to the amazing human body, bears the imprint of intricate planning and
construction. The false idea that such complex structures could "evolve"
by random mutations and natural selection is simply a measure of the
stupidity of human rebellion and the destructiveness of humanistic
reasoning. Such things never happen in the real world, and there is no
real scientific evidence whatever of "vertical" evolution from one
kind to
another higher kind. The only genuine evidence for evolution is the fact
that the leaders of psuedo-intellectualism believe it, and the only
reason
they and their toadys believe it is their frantic desire to escape God.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" Romans 1:12
The ear did not "evolve"; it was planted(the inner ear is the first organ
formed or "planted" in the embryo and the last organ to die). The
eye did
not "happen by chance"; it was formed. Every wise man and woman will say
with the psalmist, "I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and
wonderfully
made: marvelous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."
Psalm
139:14
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation |
03 Dec 2003 12:05:58 PM |
|
|
IknowHimDoYou wrote:
Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so...
===>I don't think so!
He is quoted as saying he has loved (past tense)
his disciples. But you were not one of those, were you
there in your past life, perhaps???
Do you believe in reincarnation?
Please cite chapter and verse where the Bible tells you
that Jesus loves you. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation -- THA MAKER MAKER |
02 Dec 2003 01:07:56 PM |
|
|
IknowHimDoYou wrote:
Designed Creation
"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be
wise? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the
eye, shall He not see? Psalm 94:8-9
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness. If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and a
clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker.
===>Why not follow through with your argument?
If the maker of an automobile requires an automobile-maker maker,
and the maker of a clock requires a clockmaker-maker,"surely"
the infinitely more complex automobile-maker maker and clockmaker-
maker would DEMAND a Maker of the automobile-maker maker and
a clockmaker-maker maker.
And, of course, that "Maker" would even MORE so require an even
higher order MAKER -- and eventually we run out of upper-case
letters.
Libertarius
==============
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation -- THA MAKER MAKER |
12 Dec 2003 03:50:45 PM |
|
|
In article <3FCCE30C.F7A58AF8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
IknowHimDoYou wrote:
Designed Creation
"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be
wise? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the
eye, shall He not see? Psalm 94:8-9
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness. If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and a
clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker.
===>Why not follow through with your argument?
If the maker of an automobile requires an automobile-maker maker,
and the maker of a clock requires a clockmaker-maker,"surely"
the infinitely more complex automobile-maker maker and clockmaker-
maker would DEMAND a Maker of the automobile-maker maker and
a clockmaker-maker maker.
And, of course, that "Maker" would even MORE so require an even
higher order MAKER -- and eventually we run out of upper-case
letters.
Libertarius
Wise, for men, foolishness to God, but then what is new here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation -- THA MAKER MAKER |
12 Dec 2003 10:08:30 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1212031650460001@192.168.1.55...
In article <3FCCE30C.F7A58AF8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
IknowHimDoYou wrote:
Designed Creation
"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye
be
wise? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the
eye, shall He not see? Psalm 94:8-9
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness. If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and
a
clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker.
===>Why not follow through with your argument?
If the maker of an automobile requires an automobile-maker maker,
and the maker of a clock requires a clockmaker-maker,"surely"
the infinitely more complex automobile-maker maker and clockmaker-
maker would DEMAND a Maker of the automobile-maker maker and
a clockmaker-maker maker.
And, of course, that "Maker" would even MORE so require an even
higher order MAKER -- and eventually we run out of upper-case
letters.
Libertarius
Burt: Wise, for men, foolishness to God, but then what is new here?
Tom: Tee hee hee, can't answer the question, Burt?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation -- THA MAKER MAKER |
12 Dec 2003 04:02:31 PM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1212031650460001@192.168.1.55...
In article <3FCCE30C.F7A58AF8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
IknowHimDoYou wrote:
Designed Creation
"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye
be
wise? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the
eye, shall He not see? Psalm 94:8-9
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness. If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and
a
clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker.
===>Why not follow through with your argument?
If the maker of an automobile requires an automobile-maker maker,
and the maker of a clock requires a clockmaker-maker,"surely"
the infinitely more complex automobile-maker maker and clockmaker-
maker would DEMAND a Maker of the automobile-maker maker and
a clockmaker-maker maker.
And, of course, that "Maker" would even MORE so require an even
higher order MAKER -- and eventually we run out of upper-case
letters.
Libertarius
Burt: Wise, for men, foolishness to God, but then what is new here?
Tom: Tee hee hee, yes this wise "god" couldn't think of a way to punish evil
doers in the world so he floods it killing every living thing. Yep, this is
definitely a wise "god".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "oz" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation -- THA MAKER MAKER |
13 Dec 2003 05:40:52 PM |
|
|
In article <mikeburt-1212031650460001@192.168.1.55>,
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) wrote:
Wise, for men, foolishness to God, but then what is new here?
That's easy - in the last few years Christian Fundamentalists and
creationists have created a whole new order of arrant stupidity
"Noi representiamo uno ordre nuovo del Monde" (Mussolini)
Something a bit like that I seem to remember - its a while since I read
the slogan in Cagliari Sardinia where it was fading on the wall of a post
station
Christian stupidity sleepwalking into fascism
+
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation -- THA MAKER MAKER |
12 Dec 2003 07:48:00 PM |
|
|
Michael wrote:
In article <3FCCE30C.F7A58AF8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
IknowHimDoYou wrote:
Designed Creation
"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be
wise? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the
eye, shall He not see? Psalm 94:8-9
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness. If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and a
clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker.
===>Why not follow through with your argument?
If the maker of an automobile requires an automobile-maker maker,
and the maker of a clock requires a clockmaker-maker,"surely"
the infinitely more complex automobile-maker maker and clockmaker-
maker would DEMAND a Maker of the automobile-maker maker and
a clockmaker-maker maker.
And, of course, that "Maker" would even MORE so require an even
higher order MAKER -- and eventually we run out of upper-case
letters.
Libertarius
Wise, for men, foolishness to God, but then what is new here?
===>Nothing. Crazy Michael still thinks of himself as "GOD".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Designed Creation -- THA MAKER MAKER |
16 Dec 2003 08:31:40 AM |
|
|
In article <3FDA6FD0.EB2A9E2B@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
Michael wrote:
In article <3FCCE30C.F7A58AF8@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote:
IknowHimDoYou wrote:
Designed Creation
"Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be
wise? He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the
eye, shall He not see? Psalm 94:8-9
The concept of evolution, according to this verse, is nothing but
brute-like foolishness. If an automobile requires and auto-maker, and a
clock implies a clockmaker, surely the infinitely more intricate and
complex ears and eyes we possess demand and ear-maker and an
eye-maker.
===>Why not follow through with your argument?
If the maker of an automobile requires an automobile-maker maker,
and the maker of a clock requires a clockmaker-maker,"surely"
the infinitely more complex automobile-maker maker and clockmaker-
maker would DEMAND a Maker of the automobile-maker maker and
a clockmaker-maker maker.
And, of course, that "Maker" would even MORE so require an even
higher order MAKER -- and eventually we run out of upper-case
letters.
Libertarius
Wise, for men, foolishness to God, but then what is new here?
===>Nothing. Crazy Michael still thinks of himself as "GOD".
No, that would be the crazy belief of atheists who are clueless as to what
being a son of God is, and therefore purposefully misquote them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
