Questions for creationists

[Goingonit]

Thank you Lincoln

And Ethelred, the answer to your 1st question is no: Moses saw His backside, but that's it.

[Lincoln]

"Its not transparent."

I was quoting Richard Dawkins there (although I didn't make that very clear). He said that the NERVES were transparent. No one is disputing the actual blind spot.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
. I respect people with different views than mine but I really do not see why some people have made a life's work out of ridiculing that which they do not understand.

I am not making my lifes work at this. Nor am I ridiculing something I don't understand. I understand the Bible. Its just wrong. Thats all. Its a collection of books written by many people. None of them knew how the Universe functions. None of them had contact with a god that told how it functioned. The claims made in the Bible about how things happened simply don't match the world around us.

[Lincoln]

"I have read it. Not all of it..."

Get back to me when ever you get time to read it. Here is a good place to start:

1Cor:2:12: Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Cor:2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Cor:2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

When you figure out spiritual discernment let me know and we can discuss God together. Until then you may want to read my coments to Goinonit. I do not debate with fools.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Thank you Lincoln

And Ethelred, the answer to your 1st question is no: Moses saw His backside, but that's it.

How many ways shall I show that to be wrong?

Would you like yes or no? I think I will do both.

Abraham met Jehovah. Fed him. Washed his feet. Its in Genesis.

However elsewhere in the Bible it says:


Exodus 33:20
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.


I got more quotes saying no one has seen god. But that one is attributed to Jehovah so its pretty authoratative.

[mactbone]

Oh well, it doesn't matter. This is all a false reality. We are all being mass hallucinated. I think it might be the Christian God, but I'm also leaning toward a mad scientist who has encased my brain in a jar...

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"I have read it. Not all of it..."

Get back to me when ever you get time to read it. Here is a good place to start:

When I see a reason to believe the stuff I am presently sure is wrong. Not till then.

You don't seem to have the knowledge or the will to show that evidence assuming it exists. I think it doesn't.

1Cor:2:12: Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Cor:2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Cor:2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

When you figure out spiritual discernment let me know and we can discuss God together. Until then you may want to read my coments to Goinonit. I do not debate with fools.

When you figure out how to debate you will quite calling people fools when you are doing badly in the debate.

There is no spiritual discernment without a spirit. The is no wisdom in ignorance. Evasions and nonsense passed off as wisdom is not convincing.

Where is evidence to support the Bible? Where is evidence to support Genesis? Without evidence there is no reason to believe except wishfull thinking. I debate with those that are willing. Even fools. Even people foolish enough to call me a fool.

I do like them to apologize though. Bad manners is no way to get belief.

[Ethelred]

but I'm also leaning toward a mad scientist who has encased my brain in a jar...

Then it would be wise if you leaned away. You could wind up as a head on a plate in a bad Z grade movie in B and W. On saturday afternoon TV shows with used car salesmen paying the bills.

[Lincoln]

Ethelred,

You probably do deserve an apology so I offer mine. I have debated these subjects with non believers like you for the past few years. If Apolyton still had archives then you would see that.

If two people are on entirely different frequencies then there is no communication. We are talking about apples and oranges. I engaged in a scientific debate about a month ago here because it was strictly science and fact. I do not engage in combination faith/science/ debates because they are fruitless and endless and resolve nothing because they are matters of faith and belief and/or supernatural intervention etc.. It is foolish to pretend that there will be a resolution. If you want to debate then do it with someone who calls themselves a creation scientist or when you have a revelation and a spiritual understanding of the Bible then we can discuss that. You went right past what I said about the spiritual interpretation of scripture and expect me to debate you about what you perceive as contradictions. The contradiction is inherent before we begin. Anyway I do apologize for calling you a fool.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
the ophthalmology researcher George Marshall

Is this the same George Marshall on this webpage?

If so, there is something terribly fishy going on. There is no "ophthalmology researcher" with the name Geroge Marshall at the University of Glasgow, let alone him being the Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer.

Lies are bad. Really, really, bad.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Goingonit
If it is clear to see that God exists, then what element does faith play? Likewise, if it is not clear to see that God exists, where is the evidence for His existence?

So what are you trying to say here? Are you saying that this belief should be based on faith alone, or are you arguing for more evidence?

You have to pick a side.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Ethelred,

You probably do deserve an apology so I offer mine.

Apology accepted.

I have debated these subjects with non believers like you for the past few years.

Maximum PC has a lot of older discusions.

If two people are on entirely different frequencies then there is no communication. We are talking about apples and oranges.

I am talking about things that are verifiable. You are right that there is no talking with you don't want to try that.

It is foolish to pretend that there will be a resolution.

Since I have had success I don't need to pretend. Not much success but some.

If you want to debate then do it with someone who calls themselves a creation scientist or when you have a revelation and a spiritual understanding of the Bible then we can discuss that.

When someone starts talking spiritual understanding that means they have had a REVELATION that they think is from god. There is discussing anything with such a person. I have done so anyway. It helps clarify thinking on at least one side anyway. The catch is the spiritual revalation type don't actually believe the Bible. As could be seen in your aproach to Noah's Ark. You believe your revelation and the Bible is method of trying to analyze you mystic thinking. Now I could be wrong on that but you have all the signs.

You went right past what I said about the spiritual interpretation of scripture and expect me to debate you about what you perceive as contradictions.

Actually I didn't. You aren't the only person on the thread. As I said I have discussed the Bible before with people that think they have had a personal revelation. The discussions tend towards strangeness. Some are more grounded in facts than others. You apear to be one of the others.

Now if I could only get Gish to debate me. That would be fun. I don't think he would like online debates. There is too much time to think.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Is this the same George Marshall on this webpage?

If so, there is something terribly fishy going on. There is no "ophthalmology researcher" with the name Geroge Marshall at the University of Glasgow, let alone him being the Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer.

Lies are bad. Really, really, bad.

I don't know if that really the case here. The date is 1996.

However take another look at this line

I pointed out that the principal reason as to why the eye cannot be regarded as being wired backward (as some evolutionists claim) was hidden in a footnote in your article.

That IS false. He has created a straw man. What Dawkins said is that the blood vessels are in front of the retina. Which is absolutely true for humans. He said they are behind the retina for molusks, which is also true.

Typical straw man manuever.

[Lincoln]

Good article on the eye:

http://www.trueorigin.org/retina.asp

[Kaak]

John...dogs to people...good comparison

What about the coccyx or wisdom teeth?

I'm not a creationalist either, but I think that if god made us in his own image, maybe he had a coccyx or wisdom teeth

but no, as for the coccyx, the spine has to end some where doesn't it?

Wisdom teeth may have been helpful before fire to help eat meat?