Ladies and gentlemen, for your entertainment, I give you Stripe
Who Hates Academic Freedom?
- Thread starter 6days
- Start date
Ladies and gentlemen, for your entertainment, I give you Stripe
Ask him (Stripe) about tides
Except when it is
6days
New member
If you think His Word can be contradictory, then you don't know Him.
Ah....so you've met God personally?
6days
New member
Yes... He loves me. Do you have a personal relationship with Him?
"Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in, and we will share a meal together as friends." Rev.3:20
I didn't ask if you've prayed to Him. I asked if you've met Him. Lest you are putting yourself on the same high pedestal reserved for saints and prophets, I don't think you have
Dialogos
Well-known member
Its not my version, its the version that the bible teaches.
The bible is very clear that God created all things.
John 1:3, for example, bears this out quite nicely.
Anyone who hasn't deluded themselves realizes that John 1:3 is fundamentally irreconcilable with the notion that the universe created itself, that life on earth created itself and that each and every species on the planet was the result of an undirected process driven by random mutation.
The IDers say that the observable evidence from the physical world alone does not point to any specific being as creator it only suggests that there was one.Barbarian said:
This observation is what ID opponents (like you) deny.
ID opponents, like you, deny that the physical world gives us any evidence whatsoever that there is a creator.
My God?Barbarian said:
What god would your precious theory of evolution have you pray to?
:chuckle:
Barbarian said:
:doh::doh::doh:
This is the most ridiculous thing uttered in this thread and could very well be the dumbest thing said on this forum year to date.
Either the universe is designed or undesigned.
If it is designed then that requires a designer and the order we see in the universe is an indication of that design. God's invisible attributes and divine power are indeed clearly seen through what has been made.
If it is undesigned then the order we see in the universe is merely illusion and therefore nothing in all of creation points to the existence of God.
You are either going to have to be a double minded fool or pick a lane.
Name-calling and labeling seems immature to me. It is not only hurtful and cruel but gives little attention to other people and their sense of dignity.
I read and study the Bible. I have found two versions of the creation myth as well as two versions of the Noah stories.
In the first chapter of Genesis, humans are created after the animals are created. In the second chapter, humans were created before the other animals.
In chapter one of Genesis, man and woman were created simultaneously, while in the second chapter the text says man was created first, then the animals, then woman from Adam's rib.
Historians (which use historical methodology, not theological or apologetic claims) have found two different creation stories. One story calls God Jehovah (Yaweh) and the other story calls God Elohim. Rather than try a mental pretzel action to "force" the two accounts to agree, I take both versions seriously (because they are in the Bible!).
There are many different traditions and theologies in the Bible, and these are just two of them.
Next time, instead of name-calling just ask me directly for evidence.
I am willing to grant other posters their own philosophy/interpretation of the Bible. I guess I am just disappointed that you will not allow me the same courtesy.
6days
New member
Akido7 said:
Either that is true...in which case God's Word can't really be trusted; or, you don't have a correct understanding.*
Akido7 said:
Again, if you are correct then the God's Word is simply like a buffet where we pick and choose what to believe.
I believe chapter 2 complements chapter 1 providing additional details, in regards to humans. For example, animals are mentioned in this chapter because Adam names them. Chapter 1 provides us with the order of creation...not ch.2.
Akido7 said:
Again, if you are correct then the God's Word is*wrong. *Chapter 2 is not providing the sequence of events as found in ch.1. But, ch.2 is providing details *surrounding the creation of humanity.
I suspect you are not sincere in studying and trying to understand God's Word Akido...although possibly I'm wrong and you just worded things poorly. Christians don't generally diss God's Word, or treat it with irreverence by referring to it as a myth, as you have done.*
Akido you can try to point out to 6days that the Gen 1 creation account is chronologically different than the Gen 2 account, but he'll just ignore you
I feel confident that with time and counseling, you'll get over it. :up:
Begging the question is a logical fallacy. And I have read about 100 versions of the Sunflower movement, proving absolutely that it was entirely metaphorical.
You take them seriously by denying they ever happened.
You're allowed your stupid ideas. :up:
Dialogos assumes the Magisterium:
Because God gave you alone the ability to understand scripture? No, I don't think so.
I'm pleased you'll admit that much, but your problem seems to be that you object to the way He did it.
Barbarian observes:
The IDers say God might be a "space alien." Sorry, not my God.
Actually, they demoted Him to "designer", a mere "space alien", perhaps.
If you think so, you're dumber than I thought at first glance.
Barbarian on the IDer version of God:
Sorry your god is too small to do what I know mine does.
The one you guys think might be a space alien.
Science can't say anything about God. Sorry. You're looking in the wrong place.
Barbarian observes:
An omnipotent God doesn't design anything.
Perhaps you don't know what "design" means. God is the Creator. He has no need to figure out things the way we do.
Designed or created. Christians think it's created.
You're merely unwilling to grant God the virtue of omnipotence. A Creator, who had no need of design scares you.
Why not just accept the God of the Bible, and put your space alien aside?
Because God gave you alone the ability to understand scripture? No, I don't think so.
I'm pleased you'll admit that much, but your problem seems to be that you object to the way He did it.
Barbarian observes:
The IDers say God might be a "space alien." Sorry, not my God.
Actually, they demoted Him to "designer", a mere "space alien", perhaps.
If you think so, you're dumber than I thought at first glance.
Barbarian on the IDer version of God:
Sorry your god is too small to do what I know mine does.
The one you guys think might be a space alien.
Science can't say anything about God. Sorry. You're looking in the wrong place.
Barbarian observes:
An omnipotent God doesn't design anything.
Perhaps you don't know what "design" means. God is the Creator. He has no need to figure out things the way we do.
Designed or created. Christians think it's created.
You're merely unwilling to grant God the virtue of omnipotence. A Creator, who had no need of design scares you.
Why not just accept the God of the Bible, and put your space alien aside?
Meanwhile, the Bible says "six days," while you pretend your "billions of years" lines up with scripture. When you've chosen one or the other, you might be able to join a rational discussion.
6days
New member
Not a canonized one. Which is what I meant. But you knew that already
Dialogos
Well-known member
Of course not!
Most bibles are translated at an 8th grade reading level. So if you can read at that level, you should be able to understand it.
No so called "magisterium" needed.
That's exactly your problem, Barbarian.Barbarian said:
Evolutionary theory doesn't claim that evolution is the means by which God created, you are superimposing theistic intent on a theory that has no room for theistic intent. In fact, the whole notion of creation is inherently foreign to the basic naturalistic premises of evolution to begin with!
You've already been corrected on this straw man argument. Continuing to use it just shows that you aren't interested in honest dialog.Barbarian said:
Meaningless Ad Hominem attack.Barbarian said:
Wait, you just got through telling us that evolution was the way God created.Barbarian said:
Pick a lane.
Either science can't say anything about God and therefore can't detect the means by which God created, or science can and your objections to ID are unfounded.
No one is claiming that God needed to "figure out" anything.Barbarian said:
This is how the ID movement defines ID.
Questions about Intelligent Design
1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer’s article “Not By Chance” from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS’s “Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).
(Q and A Page, Discovery Institute )
1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer’s article “Not By Chance” from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS’s “Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).
(Q and A Page, Discovery Institute )
What in that statement do you find unscientific or objectionable?
Your attempt to strain at semantic gnats here is silly.Barbarian said:
The vast majority of ID proponents would readily concur that the evidence for design indicates a Creator (who created Ex Nihilo).
The vast majority of ID opponents object to the very notion that one can find evidence of creation whatsoever. In fact, in the Dover trial, one of the the ID opponent's chief objections was that ID it was "creationism."
That is the tension that defines the debate and your attempt to want to straddle the fence makes you double minded. Which is why your posts are walking self-contradictions where you argue that science can't say anything about God and then proceed to argue that evolution is the way God created.
Barbarian chuckles:
Because God gave you alone the ability to understand scripture?
So you're opposed to what most Christians think it says, because...
So most Christians think you've added your own desires to it. Sounds like it's you, not Christians, who has a problem.
So why are you setting yourself up as Pope, telling other Christians what to believe?
(diologos admits God created all things)
Barbarian observes:
I'm pleased you'll admit that much, but your problem seems to be that you object to the way He did it.
All Christians are wrong, but diologos. I see.
Of course it doesn't. It's a scientific theory, not a religion. Science can't discuss God. But scientists can. Think about it, and you'll figure it out.
No, you're just assuming that scientists are limited the way science is. We aren't. So, if I'm canoeing down the Trinity backwaters, and observing waterfowl, I can also get an epiphany about God and His wisdom and power, even if I know some of the details of the way He made those things I'm seeing.
I pity people who are unable to do what St. Paul mentioned in Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
You've been badly misled about that. And it's been like that from the start:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Last sentence from Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species
Barbarian observes:
The IDers say God might be a "space alien." Sorry, not my God.
Well, let's take a look...
Some leading intelligent design proponents have stated identifying or characterizing the designer is beyond the scope of intelligent design as a line of inquiry. Proponents had hoped that, by avoiding invoking creation by a specific supernatural entity, (such as that employed by creation science), intelligent design would be considered scientific and not violate the establishment clause of the US constitution. Proponents feared that were intelligent design identified as a restatement of previous forms of creationism, it would be precluded from being taught in public schools after the 1987 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Edwards vs Aguillard. This line of reasoning was not particularly persuasive to many in the scientific community, which largely rejected intelligent design as both a line of scientific inquiry and as a basis for a sound education in science...
Highlighting these mutually exclusive claims about the designer, Dembski, despite having said that the intelligent designer or designers could be any god or gods, or even space aliens, has also said that "intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces"[12] and that "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_designer
Surprise. Yes, we know that for most IDers, that's just a dishonesty to disguise their attempt to sneak God into science curricula disguised as a "space alien." But not for all of them. And if they bring God down to the level of a space alien, then they have turned their back on Christianity.
Barbarian observes:
If you think so, you're dumber than I thought at first glance.
You said something remarkably stupid. I'm suggesting that you aren't as stupid you would have to be to say something like that in earnest.
Barbarian observes:
Science can't say anything about God. Sorry. You're looking in the wrong place.
Yep. Science can't talk about God. But scientists can.
You've just been conditioned to believe that there has to be a contradiction between God and His creation. As you see, that's a foolish assumption.
It can't. See above to understand why scientists can.
Barbarian observes:
Perhaps you don't know what "design" means. God is the Creator. He has no need to figure out things the way we do.
You are, if you accuse Him of "design", unless you drain all the meaning out of the word, and simply misuse it as a synonym for "intent."
Well, let's see what they say it means when they think no one is paying attention. From the accidentally-leaked Wedge Document:
Governing Goals:
Now let's see what they say when they want to convince the public that they aren't a religion:
Questions about Intelligent Design
1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
So, as the court found in the Dover case, IDers haven't been honest about their objectives, publicly proclaiming scientific goals while privately admitting to be a religion.
The injection of religious intent to be disguised as scientific inquiry.
The odd misconception that natural selection has no direction.
Barbarian
Designed or created. Christians think it's created.
If so, it's hard to see why you're trying to hard to get us to buy into your "design" story.
Realistically, as the court has found, it's just a deception to get religion into science. No one is really fooled.
You honestly think God created life ex nihilo?
Some of the most important witnesses in the Dover trial against ID, were theists, who acknowledge the Creator. Kenneth Miller, for example, is a Catholic.
The director of the Human Genome Project is a devout evangelical Christian. You've been misled about that, too.
The most devastating piece of evidence for that,was "Of Pandas and People", when a typo in the book showed that it was a creationist book, that had been altered by removing "creator" and inserting "designer."
I'm just willing to let God decide how it's done. As you see, there is no conflict except for ID/creationists who are unhappy with the way He handled creation. Hence, the weird positions you have to assume to justify your alteration of His word.
You're just assuming that scientists can't do anything but science. As you just learned, that's wrong.
There's a lot more to learn about this. Why not go and see? It could bring you closer to a walk with God.
Think about it. I don't want you to admit being wrong, or to win here. I'd just like you to approach God with an open mind and think about it.
Could be the best thing you've ever done for yourself.
Because God gave you alone the ability to understand scripture?
So you're opposed to what most Christians think it says, because...
So most Christians think you've added your own desires to it. Sounds like it's you, not Christians, who has a problem.
So why are you setting yourself up as Pope, telling other Christians what to believe?
(diologos admits God created all things)
Barbarian observes:
I'm pleased you'll admit that much, but your problem seems to be that you object to the way He did it.
All Christians are wrong, but diologos. I see.
Of course it doesn't. It's a scientific theory, not a religion. Science can't discuss God. But scientists can. Think about it, and you'll figure it out.
No, you're just assuming that scientists are limited the way science is. We aren't. So, if I'm canoeing down the Trinity backwaters, and observing waterfowl, I can also get an epiphany about God and His wisdom and power, even if I know some of the details of the way He made those things I'm seeing.
I pity people who are unable to do what St. Paul mentioned in Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
You've been badly misled about that. And it's been like that from the start:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Last sentence from Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species
Barbarian observes:
The IDers say God might be a "space alien." Sorry, not my God.
Well, let's take a look...
Some leading intelligent design proponents have stated identifying or characterizing the designer is beyond the scope of intelligent design as a line of inquiry. Proponents had hoped that, by avoiding invoking creation by a specific supernatural entity, (such as that employed by creation science), intelligent design would be considered scientific and not violate the establishment clause of the US constitution. Proponents feared that were intelligent design identified as a restatement of previous forms of creationism, it would be precluded from being taught in public schools after the 1987 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Edwards vs Aguillard. This line of reasoning was not particularly persuasive to many in the scientific community, which largely rejected intelligent design as both a line of scientific inquiry and as a basis for a sound education in science...
Highlighting these mutually exclusive claims about the designer, Dembski, despite having said that the intelligent designer or designers could be any god or gods, or even space aliens, has also said that "intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces"[12] and that "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_designer
Surprise. Yes, we know that for most IDers, that's just a dishonesty to disguise their attempt to sneak God into science curricula disguised as a "space alien." But not for all of them. And if they bring God down to the level of a space alien, then they have turned their back on Christianity.
Barbarian observes:
If you think so, you're dumber than I thought at first glance.
You said something remarkably stupid. I'm suggesting that you aren't as stupid you would have to be to say something like that in earnest.
Barbarian observes:
Science can't say anything about God. Sorry. You're looking in the wrong place.
Yep. Science can't talk about God. But scientists can.
You've just been conditioned to believe that there has to be a contradiction between God and His creation. As you see, that's a foolish assumption.
It can't. See above to understand why scientists can.
Barbarian observes:
Perhaps you don't know what "design" means. God is the Creator. He has no need to figure out things the way we do.
You are, if you accuse Him of "design", unless you drain all the meaning out of the word, and simply misuse it as a synonym for "intent."
Well, let's see what they say it means when they think no one is paying attention. From the accidentally-leaked Wedge Document:
Governing Goals:
- To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
- "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Now let's see what they say when they want to convince the public that they aren't a religion:
Questions about Intelligent Design
1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
So, as the court found in the Dover case, IDers haven't been honest about their objectives, publicly proclaiming scientific goals while privately admitting to be a religion.
The injection of religious intent to be disguised as scientific inquiry.
The odd misconception that natural selection has no direction.
Barbarian
Designed or created. Christians think it's created.
If so, it's hard to see why you're trying to hard to get us to buy into your "design" story.
Realistically, as the court has found, it's just a deception to get religion into science. No one is really fooled.
You honestly think God created life ex nihilo?
Some of the most important witnesses in the Dover trial against ID, were theists, who acknowledge the Creator. Kenneth Miller, for example, is a Catholic.
The director of the Human Genome Project is a devout evangelical Christian. You've been misled about that, too.
The most devastating piece of evidence for that,was "Of Pandas and People", when a typo in the book showed that it was a creationist book, that had been altered by removing "creator" and inserting "designer."
I'm just willing to let God decide how it's done. As you see, there is no conflict except for ID/creationists who are unhappy with the way He handled creation. Hence, the weird positions you have to assume to justify your alteration of His word.
You're just assuming that scientists can't do anything but science. As you just learned, that's wrong.
There's a lot more to learn about this. Why not go and see? It could bring you closer to a walk with God.
Think about it. I don't want you to admit being wrong, or to win here. I'd just like you to approach God with an open mind and think about it.
Could be the best thing you've ever done for yourself.
Barbarian hates scripture.
Dialogos
Well-known member
A. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy and is a notoriously horrible way to make decisions regarding truth.
B. I'm not sure you are even right about what "most Christians" think.
I believe what the bible says...
Maybe someday you will too.
This is a totally irrelevant statement for three reasons.Barbarian said:
1. I don't accept the flawed notion of a "pope" to begins with.
2. We are discussing what ID teaches and how it squares with the bible which even the most ardent catholic will agree they don't need the pope to read and understand.
Case in point, where can I find the line by line, definitive, authoritative commentary of the bible by the Pope(s)?
3. The bible doesn't talk about evolution, wanna know why?
:doh:
Scientists, in their role as scientists, have been - by virtue of a radical philosophical commitment to absolute materialism - barred from any talk about a Creator God. That's not my limitation, as you erroneously imply here:Barbarian said:
Barbarian said:
That's the limitation of philosophical materialism, which is a basic commitment of those who appose ID.
You said you pity those who are unable to see God's invisible attributes and Divine nature through what has been made. That's almost laughable given that this is exactly what philosophical materialism does, it refuses to see that the complexity of the creation implies the existence of the Creator.
And Romans 1:20 is what you deny when you deny Intelligent Design.
Take for example the fact that you can quote from the "nefarious"
Wedge Document:"Governing Goals:
- To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
... arguing that this shouldn't be included in science curricula for students to consider. And then, quite hypocritically, pity those who subscribe to the very scientific materialism that rejects the theistic notion of a Creator.
:doh:
So when you say:
Your approach to science does just that. You as a professing Christian pity you as a professing so called scientist.Barbarian said:
Double minded and therefore unstable.
Your quotation of the Wedge Document also shows that you know that ID doesn't teach any "space alien" nonsense thereby making your constant refrain to this affect disingenuous.
In short, its a lie you keep telling because you think you make a point telling it, but it besmirches your own character in the process.
Shame on you.
:nono: