User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:00:15 AM EDT
[#1]
You're free to explore the details of creation. Of course, you're going to have to drop your false presuppositions before such exploration will profit you any. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:00:56 AM EDT
[#2]
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:02:35 AM EDT
[#3]
Then this is a great chance for you to do some re-thinking. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:03:01 AM EDT
[#4]
But you are. You will not bring anyone to the Lord by quoting a Scripture they don't believe. You have to try something else.
But you can. You can do so by expressing YOUR reasons for belief, and showing that they go far beyond the Scriptures.
Agreed, but He will not intervene unless the person seeks Him out first.
Indeed. And He has kept it.
Incorrect. Holding up the Word does nothing. Explaining to people WHY you believe the Word will, in time and if done properly, instill curiosity and even hope. It is then that the Lord will step in, in His own good time, and do His thing. Conversion to Christ requires a mink mitten, not an armored gauntlet. It requires submission first, and they will not submit to being beaten. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:06:35 AM EDT
[#5]
With all due respect, brother, I don't know where you're getting your apologetic methods, but it's not from Scripture. The things I have put in red flatly and directly contradict Scripture. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:08:32 AM EDT
[#6]
You sit and nitpick EVERY SINGLE deatil of evolution (which you are free to do, it is a science afterall) yet dont give me ONE SINGLE detail about your proof of creation/God/the bible, etc. Seems pretty one way, either that or you have non. Thats generally what I think until you prove otherwise. All you do for me is, "scripture is your proof". GIVE ME MORE.....please. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:08:56 AM EDT
[#7]
You know what's ironic about arowner? His inability to communicate with people who differ from his views makes them want to reject all of his ideas.
Personally - if the fellow Christians I knew were like him Id probably be at best agnostic at best and an atheist at worse. Instead of spreading the word of God, he is repulsing people from it. Sad. On the flip side, my deacon, and the one who married us, is a fantastic scholar. He converted to Catholicism from being a Lutheran. He has had fantastic answers for nearly all of my questions, and humble enough to confess when he didnt know something and went to look it up. He is very active in interfaith studies - bridging the gap between the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches. Heck - the Lutherans are now only 4 or 5 issues away from agreeing with the Catholic church again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:13:13 AM EDT
[#8]
I have no apologetic methods. I simply express what I have had revealed to me through MY inner discussions with Christ, where I let Him do most of the talking and I shut up and listen. I may point out in Scripture where something is cogently said, but I never reply to a question like "Why do you believe God exists?" by saying "Because the Scriptures say so." First, it's not very convincing, second, it's not true. But everyone has their methodologies, and I'm certainly in no contest to save more souls than anyone else. Hell, I'm still working on mine to be worried about preaching to unbelievers. I'm hardly a good example of a believer, at any rate. Definitely no role model. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:15:08 AM EDT
[#9]
My ability to communicate is fine. As stated elsewhere, the problem is with the reciever.
That speaks volumes....
Jesus never said people would like it. They killed Him over it - why should I expect any better?
True.
So much for being a scholar, then.
YOU mean he had answers you liked.....
Who said I knew everything?
 That gap can't be bridged.
Not the ones who actually study...what was his name? Oh, yeah....LUTHER. Rememebr the 95 theses? Rememebr 'the just shall live by faith'? If 'lutherans' agree with rome, they're not lutherans anymore........that's sort of obvious on its face! |
|||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:19:37 AM EDT
[#10]
I get scared when people say things like that. The heart is decietful and wicked. If you want to listen to God, read His Word.
Scripture says it is.
What!?
Yes - some are good, some are not.
You're not? But you just said you were a Christian..... 
Not trusting in Christ's work? 
I have good news, then: James 5:20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
Same here. |
||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:23:51 AM EDT
[#11]
"the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity" So, you seem to think the age of a book should be the basis of it's validity? No, you are going to come back with "it's God's word", which is circular reasoning. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:26:50 AM EDT
[#12]
Gee - maybe things have changed - between both churches - since Luther put up his Theses. Like I said you seem to be stuck in the Dark Ages. BTW - they arent doing inquisitions any longer, so you can come out of your bunker. Its safe. There have been joint talks between the two and they basically 'agree to disagree' on several key points. But they have taken steps to see eye-to-eye. And yeah - re-unification is a goal between some people of both sects. You seem content on keeping things separate - I guess more room in heaven for your ilk? Thats worked out like gangbusters for the Sunni and Shiites. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 7:30:15 AM EDT
[#13]
Oy..... HUMILTY, brother! HUMILITY! 
Why? Is He limited to only that?
You heard me. First off, if someone does not openly accept Scripture then you have to find another way to open their minds and hearts to read it themselves. Telling them they are wrong if they don't is inneffective. As for the second item, I believe in God and Christ for any number of reasons beyond Scripture, which I haven't read all of (or that much of, for that matter). I believe in Them because I CHOOSE to and because I have felt Their hands on my heart and soul.
True. I would suggest you reflect on how successful you've been here before you judge too harshly, however.
I am a Christian because I believe in Christ. I do not distrust His work; I distrust my commitment to Him. There's a difference. As for converting others, the few times I have been confronted with a curious soul, I have explained my reasons for belief and what little Scripture I knew, and how those beliefs had changed my life. I did not preach, condemn, or insult. I simply explained. They listened and left feeling better than when they arrived. Sadly, I have not been able to remain in touch with them so I am unaware if they continued their Walk. Even if they did, I would take no credit for it.
Perhaps one day the Lord will consider me ready to do that. Until then, I piddle along doing what little I can, and trying to alienate as few souls as possible in the process. ETA: Bio-Logos. I believe, and Darwin was right. There is no conflict. 
|
||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:01:41 AM EDT
[#14]
Coming in late.
I saw Expelled last night. A couple points: 1. Stein did not push ID. The focus was on what happens to people who raise questions about Darwinism. 2. Those who accuse Stein of Michael Moore tactics are resorting to name-calling because they have no other response. He presented the facts of the cases in which professional scientists had their careers and reputations trashed for mentioning anything other theory than Darwinism. 3. The responses by Darwinists to the question of how life started, those 250 simple proteins needed to make a cell function, ranged from "crystals" to extraterrestrials. There was a lot of "I don't know, but this is what I believe despite the lack of evidence." That sounds like faith to me, not science. Personally, I would have liked to see the evidence for ID presented, but that was not the purpose of the movie. The film was not anti-Darwinism or pro-ID. It was about stifling free and open debate. Anybody who refuses to see that has perceptual problems. I heard an evolutionist say that the reason he believed in evolution was becauyse he refused to consider the alternative. I'd say he was quite honest. However, having a mind closed like that is in no way superior to the person who says, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:04:25 AM EDT
[#15]
How often to people need to run around the bush with aarowneragain?
You can't have a reasonable discussion with someone who isn't being reasonable, and no amount of logical fallacies can discredit an argument that isn't logical to begin with. One of aarowners premises is that everything he believes about the bible is true, so in any discussion of whether the bible is true, his conclusion is always contained in his premises, and the argument is always circular and illogical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:08:50 AM EDT
[#16]
That's a tad one-sided, I'd say the anathemas from the Council of Trent stand as a barrier to Christian reconciliation. They list key doctrines of Protestantism and declare that anyone who believes them is anathema, condemned and separated from God. You get the Roman church to set those aside and we might be able to have a dialogue. However, they won't. Every pope since Trent has reaffirmed them. Ecumenism from the Roman church is not based on mutual respect of differing doctrines. It's a ploy to try to draw non-catholics into their church. My first awakening to this was years ago when I attended a friend's wedding in a Roman church. They served communion during the ceremony. However, I was excluded from partaking even though I had been a CHristian for years. No, non-catholics are seen as less-than, not real Christians. Abandoning the principles of the Reformation would be a giant leap backwards. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:10:08 AM EDT
[#17]
Isn't it funny how the same wankers who love to proclaim that ID can't prove the existence of God then turn around and say that science proves that He does NOT exist? It's the same arrogance before Science that far too many believers display before God.  Science will never be able to disprove God. Ever. By the same token, the Bible is an owner's manual for the soul, not a Physics/Biology/Astronomy/Chemistry textbook, so it does not and cannot scientifically prove that God exists. Frankly, I wouldn't want it to, anyway. The sooner the two sides come to grips with the reality that their side exists irrespective of the other, the sooner we'll be able to move on from this foolishness. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:11:34 AM EDT
[#18]
Other people are bringing their preconceived conditions and worldviews into the debate. Some come and claim to be atheists, with the presupposition there is no God. Others come in with a presupposition that there is. Why is one premise automatically valid and the other is not? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:14:03 AM EDT
[#19]
This is not the first time this has been posted in this thread.
source 1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust. 2) Ben Stein's speech to a crowded auditorium in the film was a setup. 3) Scientists in the film thought they were being interviewed for a different movie. 4) The ID-sympathetic researcher whom the film paints as having lost his job at the Smithsonian Institution was never an employee there. 5) Science does not reject religious or "design-based" explanations because of dogmatic atheism. 6) Many evolutionary biologists are religious and many religious people accept evolution. The article goes into further explanation of each of these. This website details each of the "expelled" mentioned. www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:17:22 AM EDT
[#20]
I suspect that if you think carefully and closely analyze the positions of most atheists, their premise is not that there is no god, but rather that the existence of god is dependent upon there being evidence for god. Premise is a technical term in a very strict way of evaluating an argument, so you might have the term mixed up with a more general idea. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:21:12 AM EDT
[#21]
That would be the "soft" or "weak" atheist. The "hard" or "strong" atheist openly declares that there is NO god, and that anyone who believes in one is a fool, a weakling, etc. I find the former to be somewhat logical, even if I disagree with them. The latter, however, I find to be just as stupid, blind, and closed-minded as many of the believers I've run across. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:25:42 AM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:33:11 AM EDT
[#23]
Nice spin attempt by them. Stein never blamed Darwin for eugenics and the Holocaust. He showed how people used Darwinian and evolutionary theory to justify those things.
So? It sets up the presentation of the the film, then wraps up the conclusion. This point makes a molehill out of a , well, molehill.
The article mentions doubt that the movie was originally supposed to be called Crossroads instead of Expelled. Again, so? Does this negate the interviews and quotes? Are they suggesting the perople interviewed would have responded differently? The point is pretty thin.
I'll have to look into this more - pressed for time at the moment...
That section of the article dismisses ID out of hand, revealing the bias they deny. Sounds like a case of plankeye to me.
And many don't blindly accept evolution. However, it's only the religious people who accept evolution who have credibility in this article. See "plankeye" above.
The article is fine as long as one doesn't think too critically about it. Stein had valid points, and this is an example of the evolutionists firing back, kind of like what Hillary Clinton does to her opponents. |
|||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:36:59 AM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:57:34 AM EDT
[#25]
No! He presented lies. If you really want the facts, please see here: Expelled (and click on "The truth behind the fiction") Those professional "scientists" had their careers derailed because they were poor scientists. This site goes through the actual story of what happened to each scientist featured in the movie.
There is no evidence for intelligent design. That's the reason you didn't see any in the film. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 8:58:43 AM EDT
[#26]
That's all well and good, but not only does it fail to excuse aarowner's method of argument, but it also fails to be even remotely relevant to its faults. Two wrongs do not make a right, and something wrong is not even marginally less-wrong because "some other people" also do it. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:03:32 AM EDT
[#27]
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:03:59 AM EDT
[#28]
Should I just take your word for it? Have you personally, objectively examined the conclusions of ID scientists? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:10:27 AM EDT
[#29]
oxymoron |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:18:01 AM EDT
[#30]
The question of origins from the evolutionary side fails by the same criteria. Is evolution testable or repeatable? If not, why is it touted as fact? Sure there is lip service to it being a "theory", but there is a dogmatic allegiance to it. We've seen it here. When someone comes out as considering the possibility of ID the pitchforks and torches are handed out and the mob screams, "HERETIC! He's a witch! Burn him!"
I've been waiting for the abundance of evidence. There are competing alternatives in interpretation of the available evidence, but the evidence itself seems pretty thin. Care to convince me? Explain to this poor layman how: 1. A cell, which is incredibly complex in function, accidentally assembles and begins living. 2. Explain how, from this single cell, we have all forms of life today, plant and animal, along with the multitude of critters who are today extinct. 3. Explain how this is accomplished with mutations, since the vast majority of genetic mutations are harmful and not beneficial. Remember, according to the theory, everything started from a single, simple cell. 4. How did the eye, with its ability to instantly focus from far to distant objects, adjust to varying light levels, and discern colors, happened by accident without ant guidance. 5. Is there any evidence (observable, verifiable) that living things are advancing to a higher state? Call me a skeptic. Convince me with irrefutable evidence. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:19:19 AM EDT
[#31]
When one resorts to name-calling and ad hominem atatcks, it betrays a lack of confidence in the ability for a position to stand on its own merits. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:23:53 AM EDT
[#32]
Thanks for the review. the way people are reacting in this thread probably mirrors the movie. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:26:20 AM EDT
[#33]
You show your bias right here. You've already decided that they don't have anything worth hearing without examining any of their conclusions. Is this an example of the so called "open-mindedness" of the scientific community? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:35:35 AM EDT
[#34]
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:38:01 AM EDT
[#35]
i guess you don't understand what an ad hominem attack is. I wasn't calling you an oxymoron. I was saying the term ID scientist is an oxymoron. ID has nothing to do with science. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:41:47 AM EDT
[#36]
You show your ignorance right here in assuming I have not already read into ID, their points, their fallacies, their conclusions, and their agendas. I'm also not in the scientific community, I'm a single person, a layman at that. Certainly not a scientific institution or a university. Most importantly I'm a voter. I like to stay educated on this matter. The fact that this film was shown to a group of Florida lawmakes and the actions on Ronda Storms concerns me. It is my civic duty to remain informed on this. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:43:45 AM EDT
[#37]
Examples, please. As you say below, I shouldn't just take your word for it.
I suppose you came to this conclusion after your extensive personal reading of the case for ID.
That sounds like you have a lot of confidence without much to back it up. Note the questions ignored by those who claim to have the definitive answers.
I've heard claims of overwhelming evidence and repeatable science supporting evolutionary theory. If true, these questions should be child's play. How does it work? Smoke & mirrors? This arrogance and dogmatism in this thread have made it pointless. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:47:22 AM EDT
[#38]
How can you say that? you have not even read the thread or you would see where all these questions have already been answered and you're too lazy to look them up. Cpt kirks will even provide a very good reading list if you're actually interested. But i don't think that is the case. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:52:52 AM EDT
[#39]
Edited to remove a dumb comment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:59:13 AM EDT
[#40]
It isn't testable using the scientific method.
A cell is just a good way of keeping all the tools you need together. Self-reproduction is capable without a lipid bilayer.
Variability, selection and time
First of all, beneficial and harmful are relative terms. We see single celled organisms form complex communities, sharing resources and responsibility today. We also have calculated mutation rates in different organisms and have observed allele concentrations fluctuate with selective pressures.
The retina is made of photosensitive cells. Creatures exist today who only have a light-detecting surface to use to detect shadows, photosynthesis, etc. Fluid pockets would allow directional viewing and protection. A lens and iris later would provide for clearer vision in more light conditions. The eye is completely explanable via evolution, and has been done so to a greater extent than the breif summary I present here.
What is a higher state? We have observed speciation. We have observed creatures gaining the ability to digest new forms of food, and survive in more hostile environments.
They are. Read scientific literature. |
||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 9:59:31 AM EDT
[#41]
take a few min and read the thread from page one. skim it. skip any post by arowneragain and any post replying to him as they have nothing to do with the movie or this discussion. That is the bulk of the thread. You will see I posted a couple common everyday guy on the street examples of observable evolution. If you really want to get into the meat, then you're going to have to do some heavy reading. If you really don't care, then give up. It is inconsequential to me unless you vote based on ID vs. Evolution being taught in schools. Furthermore, i'm not going to call you a names, or whatever as it is not a personal matter to me. I have nothing against you. EDIT: Tolip, you let him off easy 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 10:03:13 AM EDT
[#42]
There is plenty of evidence for evolution. Look around the internet, or, better yet, read a textbook. ID is nothing more then Christianity with a different name. Dont think so? Well, lets see; the "research" foundation that started it is Christian. The individual people that lecture about ID are all Christian.....need I go on? You yourself seem to supprt ID and appear to be a Christian....And no, there is no such thing as a ID scientist. The people who "teach" ID DO NOT follow the scientific method, and are therefore NOT scientists no matter how much you want them to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 10:04:55 AM EDT
[#43]
Evolution just seems more plausible... whats the alternative? Christianity: ...the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... Magical thinking |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 10:05:42 AM EDT
[#44]
"Poor layman", I can provide you with a reading list that explain all this in simple terms. Frankly, you picked poorly. Even the ID playbook says not to use these bad examples. Also, there is NO SUCH THING as "irrefutable evidence". There will always be idiots who claim the earth is flat.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 10:06:51 AM EDT
[#45]
The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about how the original forms of life appeared. There are other biologically-based ideas, but they aren't evolution. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 10:07:14 AM EDT
[#46]
Damn, when you describe it like that, it kind of sounds like Scientology... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 10:10:48 AM EDT
[#47]
Since ID is demonstratively NOT SCIENCE, the term "ID Scientist" IS an oxymoron. Self proclaimed "geologists" who claim the earth is 6,000 years old are not scientists, either.
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 10:13:48 AM EDT
[#48]
My comment had nothing to do with any other poster. I was simply commenting on yours, and not critically. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 10:23:20 AM EDT
[#49]
Even if they hold PhDs in the field of study! 
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2008 10:25:38 AM EDT
[#50]
Please, PLEASE show me someone with a PhD in geology who claims the earth is 6,000 years old. PLEASE.
|
||||||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
