Evolution? How?

I managed to get halfway through that before I decided not to punish myself any further.

0 Replies

Exactly -- I got to the Falwell and the 1/3 to 3/4 (the difference is a lot of people!) that believe in creation and it just fortified by own conclusion that 1/3 to 3/4 of the American public are either ignorant, stupid or both.
They are those who are lined up to be on Jay Leno's street intereviews of panel quizzes.

0 Replies

LW, Those of us that can see without clouded lenses have no difficulty calling Americans stupid and ignorant. We just need to consider the majority of religious and the Bush supporters that continue to compare him to Clinton and every other past president to make their case when we're talking about the current administration and the criminals we have in the white house and congress. They continue to twist and turn logic and common sense on their heads to rationalize everything thats gone wrong during the past five years.

0 Replies

It is a constant embarassment to vote in America when we see what all the politcians finally accomplish or should I say not accomplish. Pushing religion in the public schools and making any kind of statement about what they believe about Evolution, ID or Creationism is pandering to their constituancy, pure and simple. Those who fall for it are allowing themselves to be absorbed into the Machiavellian mire.

0 Replies

I have a question, did God only want one man and woman?

Adam and Eve?

Did he intend them to live forever?

Yes...

They didn't so he made another plan for a man and woman.

A bride and a bridegroom...

The bride, Israel (OT believers) and the bridegroom, the body of Christ (Christians)...

If Adam and Eve had not sinned they would still be ruling the earth "today" and they would have if they continued to not sin lived to see the the devil destroyed.

But instead God chose the bride and bridegroom to be the man and woman instead of Adam and Eve...

The bride is a collective group of the OT believers who believed upon the coming messiah.

The bridegroom is a collective group of Christians who believe on the risen Christ who has past tense already come...

All of this understood only with and illuminated by the simple concept of body, soul and spirit...

So the bride and bridegroom will be married in the future.

The bride sleeps and the bridegroom waits at God's right hand.

The third (next) heaven and earth will be the marriage of these two where they become one.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

RexRed wrote:
THE WORD IS TRUE...

So is self-delusion.

What's your point?

Self delusion is sincerity not necessarily truth.

Sincerity is no guarantee for truth.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Hey Rex,
Do you know about the "seer stones"?
I am not Mormon........

But don't the "seer stones" help prove rocks are alive? I was also wondering if you have looked into perpetual motion machines and if you have any views on the subject.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Rex wrote:
He was the image of God not God

The problem with Christians today is the same problem that existed at the beginnings of Christianity. No one knows what to make of Jesus. Some say he's a human messenger sent by God. Others, like Rex say he's in the image of God. Others say he is God.

Many conservative Christians would not consider Rex to be a Christian. You either believe Christ and God are one in the same or not. If not your not a Christian.

Because of this diversity no matter what you say someone claiming to be a Christian will say they don't believe this or that, but some other Christian will believe it.

In conclusion Chrisitans don't know squat about God or Jesus but they think they do. That's what happens when you have a belief based on no evidence. Anyone can make up anything they like.

Xingu I need to address this post of yours... It is a good one.

You do see what I mean but your conclusions go a bit off at the end of your reasoning.

It is the Bible that I use to PROVE that Jesus was "created" and not God.

I can give you an abundance of scriptures that PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ was not God, BIBLICALLY.

The trinity is based upon vague and scarce references. The doctrine of the trinity BIBLICALLY contradicts so many scriptures that the Bible is rendered useless.

So why would religion adopt a doctrine that is not Biblical?

Because most "religion" is not ONLY a Biblical entity.

They rely on TRADITION and HISTORY for faith and practice even if it outright contradicts the Bible...

Why give it credence ? Because it is tradition.

It is a sad day when tradition wins out over the written word...

I would rather base my faith on "it is written" rather than unsubstantiated "tradition".

Mt 15:3
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

I managed to get halfway through that before I decided not to punish myself any further.

Do read this, it's twisted!

Quote:

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Hey Rex,
Do you know about the "seer stones"?
I am not Mormon........
But don't the "seer stones" help prove rocks are alive? I was also wondering if you have looked into perpetual motion machines and if you have any views on the subject.

Ok I get it...

My question is why do we need rocks to teach us when we have the holy spirit?

Perpetual motion machines are a wonder indeed Smile

Even they eventually succumb to the earth's gravity over time...

There is precious little we can do to escape the clutches of the physical world... We cannot leave that ever illusive opportunity, to escape the physical world, in the hands of happenstance...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Perpetual motion machines are a wonder indeed

Even they eventually succumb to the earth's gravity over time...

How about a perpetual motion machine in space then, away from earth's gravity, would that be OK?

0 Replies

Typical RR drivel . . . a "perpetual motion machine" which succumbs to gravity is no perpetual motion machine.

0 Replies

i know that there are threads dedicated to ID, but this one seems to be the only one that ID advocates respond to, so i pose my question here. how does the position of the eyes of an adult flounder reflect optimal design?

http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/lineart/summer%20flounder.jpg

i'm also aware that timber alluded to flounders in another thread, but Gungasnake chose not to address the issue there.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Exactly -- I got to the Falwell and the 1/3 to 3/4 (the difference is a lot of people!) that believe in creation and it just fortified by own conclusion that 1/3 to 3/4 of the American public are either ignorant, stupid or both.

They are those who are lined up to be on Jay Leno's street intereviews of panel quizzes.

You missed the best part, I'll quote it here as it ties in with the yitwail's flounder reference.

Quote:

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Typical RR drivel . . . a "perpetual motion machine" which succumbs to gravity is no perpetual motion machine.

God is the only perpetual motion "machine". Smile

0 Replies

Got any evidence that your alleged god exists, RR? Now we'll have pages and pages of drivel. I suspect you could go deep into the Maine woods and spend days talking to yourself, and be just as happy as a clam.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Typical RR drivel . . . a "perpetual motion machine" which succumbs to gravity is no perpetual motion machine.

Actually a perpetual motion machine could succumb to gravity if the gravity induced a friction coefficient higher than the "free energy" released by the perpetual motion machine. That is why I said to RexRed "How about a perpetual motion machine in space then, away from earth's gravity, would that be OK?"

(It's understood - one hopes - that perpetual motion machines would violate either the first or second laws of thermodynamics)

0 Replies

Rex wrote:
God is the only perpetual motion "machine". Smile

The only problem IDers have is that it's all in their imagination and no place else. No evidence, no common sense, no logic, and absolutely no science.

0 Replies

I have no problem with the concepts of the conservation of energy and of entropy . . . don't bet on RR taking any cognisance of them, howerver.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I have no problem with the concepts of the conservation of energy and of entropy . . . don't bet on RR taking any cognisance of them, howerver.

Or it would appear RexRed's free energy god.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know