Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I don't expect you to listen to me. If you read my previous post you would know why I think it would be a waste of time to try to convince someone like you of God's existence. I care enough to post a quick video link every now and then, for anyone who might have ears to hear, but it would be unrealistic and foolish to expect that I could change your mind... or that you could change mine. This reality should be obvious to anyone who's spent any time on a discussion forum like this.
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew: "I believe that if someone follows the truth wherever it leads, they will find it."
Posted by Rafius: "Not exactly what you do is it!"
That's correct, Rafius, because Iwasmade follows "the truth" instead of the truth.
I know the difference seems to be only semantics to some, but when you have it drilled into your head every Sunday that you are following "the truth and the way", they lose sight of what the real truth may be. Somehow it reminds me of "The Island Of Doctor Moreau".
That's correct, Rafius, because Iwasmade follows "the truth" instead of the truth.
I know the difference seems to be only semantics to some, but when you have it drilled into your head every Sunday that you are following "the truth and the way", they lose sight of what the real truth may be.
You forgot the capital T for added truth. Truth is just true, but Truth is indisputable.
The frequency with which you atheists use the terms "us" and "we" make it painfully obvious that the primary function of this forum is an echo chamber for you all to reassure each other that your beliefs are true.
I actually feel a bit bad for inciting you all to waste yet more of your time. I spend 5 seconds posting a video link and it triggers so many responses, some of them longs posts with bolded and colored text. I don't even read most of the responses because it's the same things being stated over and over. It's so obvious that you are just trying to reassure each other. I only wish you could step back from this compulsive behaviour and see your efforts for what they are. Many of you have been beating this dead horse for over a decade! And to what end? Progress? Minds getting changed? Time well spent? You're not even being honest with yourselves. So much for a clear view of reality. Hilarious and sad at the same time.
OK, go ahead and waste more of your time responding, even though it's unlikely I'll even read what you type...
[***insert wasted time here***]
01-10-2020, 09:01 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
LOL!
The frequency with which you atheists use the terms "us" and "we" make it painfully obvious that the primary function of this forum is an echo chamber for you all to reassure each other that your beliefs are true.
I actually feel a bit bad for inciting you all to waste yet more of your time. I spend 5 seconds posting a video link and it triggers so many responses, some of them longs posts with bolded and colored text. I don't even read most of the responses because it's the same things being stated over and over. It's so obvious that you are just trying to reassure each other. I only wish you could step back from this compulsive behaviour and see your efforts for what they are. Many of you have been beating this dead horse for over a decade! And to what end? Progress? Minds getting changed? Time well spent? You're not even being honest with yourselves. So much for a clear view of reality. Hilarious and sad at the same time.
OK, go ahead and waste more of your time responding, even though it's unlikely I'll even read what you type...
It has been demonstrated since before Christianity even began. It never turns out to be a god that did it, and religion always has to adapt to the new scientific findings. If religions were true, we would expect scientific facts being revealed to us. Yet this never happens.
Oh boy do you ever have that all backwards. All scientific findings point to a creator which is why design is observed throughout the universe. However the atheist evolutionist disregard the finding of design, which is observable, and proceed to explain away the scientific observation of design with hypothesis which are not observable, thus cannot be classified as scientific. Yet that scientific observation of design is seen time and time and time again. Thus it is the atheist evolutionist who has to adapt their view to old and new scientific findings. To the atheist evolutionist it simply cannot be design because then the question arises who was the designer. And as one atheist pointed out we simply cannot give God a foothold, thus the atheist explains away the scientific findings of design instead of accepting that which science observes time and time again.
Which brings to mind the scriptures
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,*even*his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen
Thus whether you like it or not the atheist evolutionist stance actually proves that the scriptures are accurate. Thus your protestations that the scriptures are not accurate are actually proof that they are.
As a side note, Richard Dawkins says this about design
“It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology— and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”
In effect Dawkins is saying it is possible that some intelligent being filled our planet with seeds of life, but of course that intelligent being simply could not be God.
This is just one of the stupid hypothesis atheist evolutionist come up with to explain design.
The frequency with which you atheists use the terms "us" and "we" make it painfully obvious that the primary function of this forum is an echo chamber for you all to reassure each other that your beliefs are true.
Check, you are not intelligent enough to think of other, more plausible reasons for using "us" and "we".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I actually feel a bit bad for inciting you all to waste yet more of your time. I spend 5 seconds posting a video link and it triggers so many responses, some of them longs posts with bolded and colored text.
If you did not want a response, why waste your time? Compulsion to pretend your most improbable god does exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
I don't even read most of the responses because it's the same things being stated over and over.
We do apologize that uncomfortable facts do not change just because you want them to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
It's so obvious that you are just trying to reassure each other. I only wish you could step back from this compulsive behaviour and see your efforts for what they are. Many of you have been beating this dead horse for over a decade! And to what end? Progress? Minds getting changed? Time well spent? You're not even being honest with yourselves. So much for a clear view of reality. Hilarious and sad at the same time.
You may run away from point 6, but the lurkers will just see how you are being dishonest. Again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
OK, go ahead and waste more of your time responding, even though it's unlikely I'll even read what you type...
[***insert wasted time here***]
We know you will not read, because you do not want to know just how wrong you are. But do not worry. We are writing for those with the intelligence and desire to learn. That is not time wasted.
See you when your compulsion makes you return in a months time. But the next time, bring a new record to the party, you play this one EVERY visit.
Oh boy do you ever have that all backwards. All scientific findings point to a creator which is why design is observed throughout the universe.
Said the dinosaur just before it saw a bright light in the sky and said "quick, make a wish" BOOOOOOM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
However the atheist evolutionist disregard the finding of design, which is observable, and proceed to explain away the scientific observation of design with hypothesis which are not observable, thus cannot be classified as scientific.
We do not observe design. We do have the scnce you pretend we do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Yet that scientific observation of design is seen time and time and time again. Thus it is the atheist evolutionist who has to adapt their view to old and new scientific findings.
You mean scientists, not evolutionists. The religious follow scntific findings, not the other way round. As they have done for the last 2000+ years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
To the atheist evolutionist it simply cannot be design because then the question arises who was the designer.
But the designer must be even more complex, so by your argument, something must have designed that designer. And so on ad infinitum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
And as one atheist pointed out we simply cannot give God a foothold, thus the atheist explains away the scientific findings of design instead of accepting that which science observes time and time again.
Allegedly said according to someone well known for doing what he accuses others of doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Which brings to mind the scriptures
Scripture, the PERFECT place for your god to give us anything scientific. Yet it fails, time after time after time. Why is that? Because religion follows scnce, not the other way round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
Thus whether you like it or not the atheist evolutionist stance actually proves that the scriptures are accurate. Thus your protestations that the scriptures are not accurate are actually proof that they are.
Yes, I get ALL my scnce from reading scripture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
As a side note, Richard Dawkins says this about design
“It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology— and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”
In effect Dawkins is saying it is possible that some intelligent being filled our planet with seeds of life, but of course that intelligent being simply could not be God.
This is just one of the stupid hypothesis atheist evolutionist come up with to explain design.
good grief
And yet it is still more plausible than an old man in the sky who just happens to know everything. Perhaps it was designed that way.
01-10-2020, 09:58 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
As a side note, Richard Dawkins says this about design
“It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology— and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. … And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.”
In effect Dawkins is saying it is possible that some intelligent being filled our planet with seeds of life, but of course that intelligent being simply could not be God.
This is just one of the stupid hypothesis atheist evolutionist come up with to explain design.
good grief
So you think it is stupid to hypothesis, given design, that intelligent aliens seeded this planet with life but not stupid to think that it was a non-material abstract omni mind.
It is easy to hypothesize anything but there is no evidence for this non-material abstract omni mind. We do have evidence of intelligent material life right here on earth - why not elsewhere? If design is going to be granted for the sake of argument, as Dawkins was doing, it is far more intelligent to reason that it was from material beings elsewhere than a non-material abstract omni being.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nce you pretend we do not.