Friday/Saturday/Sunday morning preaching.

[Akar]

The bible is not "a science" so I'm not sure what you mean. If we're discussing evolution or physics or whatever, then yes. The word of a scientist is worth far more than that of a layman.

And no.

And no...what? No you shouldn't trust an expert in their field over a layman?

You want to elaborate on that at all?

[Infidel144]

The bible is not "a science" so I'm not sure what you mean.

Quite. Dawkins' field, from what you have provided, is not biblical scholarship, while you tout him as being knowledgeable because he has, supposedly, read the bible.
As shown by you, who has 'read it front to back dozens of times', yet is profoundly ignorant of it.

If we're discussing evolution or physics or whatever, then yes. The word of a scientist is worth far more than that of a layman.

And no...what? No you shouldn't trust an expert in their field over a layman?
You want to elaborate on that at all?

You said:
"Dawkins does, however, have a Phd in philosophy which is pretty damn relevant when you're discussing morality and religion don't you think?"
I said no. That is, after all, what the reformation was about...

[Akar]

Again, the bible is not a science nor do you need a degree in anything to understand it properly. I don't understand what you're trying to say, and I'm not sure you understand it either.

You said:
"Dawkins does, however, have a Phd in philosophy which is pretty damn relevant when you're discussing morality and religion don't you think?"
I said no. That is, after all, what the reformation was about...

Still just word salad to me.

[Prodromos]

Makes you think, doesn't it

[Akar]

Think about what, exactly?

Makes me think about the methodology that was used to make this graph. You can cherry pick data to make a graph say anything you want, anyone who has taken a statistics class can tell you that. For example, when I search for "Encylopedia of Wars" one of the first things I get is an extensive article rebutting it's use as a source in this way.

I also have no idea what the Nobel laureates thing has to do with anything. What does a Nobel laureates religion have to do with anything?

Don't even get me started on the inherent bias of a graph created by "pentecostals and charismatics for peace and justice"

[basics]

Akar,

One can read the Bible many times and still never get to understand the depth and meaning in it, why? Because as Peter tells us interpretation comes by the Holy Spirit breaking down the hardened heart to expose its true meaning on the person He is dealing with. It's a Supernatural act by God not only to bring people to Christ but also to reassure them that once they are His He will never let them go. It's the action of Jesus Christ on that cross that is the core to finding salvation and nothing else. The experience of being born again is way beyond any other experience men and women can have because it's not natural. Everyone could tell you it was out of their control and why friends, relatives and suchlike think they have gone loopy. There is no natural explanation for it yet it happens and is happening somewhere across this world as I write.

[Akar]

Doesn't it get tiring trying to find ways of saying "god works in mysterious ways" without repeating yourself? Seriously, get another answer.

The experience of being born again is way beyond any other experience men and women can have because it's not natural.

You have clearly never tried DMT or LSD.

Everyone could tell you it was out of their control and why friends, relatives and suchlike think they have gone loopy.

Again - if everywhere you go smells like , maybe you're the one who stepped in .

There is no natural explanation for it yet it happens and is happening somewhere across this world as I write.

Not natural explanation for what? People delude themselves all the time, there's nothing special about christianity in that regard.

[swabian]

No it will never do. What you will find is not communicating too much with the flock.

[basics]

Akar,

No, I have never tried LSD or DMT whatever that is. It's hard for you to understand what you have never experienced simply because you are on the outside trying to see what you cannot. So, of course it's all dilusional to you and so you must tear it all down as best as you can just like Dawkins and many others. May I also say that there is nothing mysterious about God because it's all there in the Bible once you get past the dead letter. Jesus Christ is the key, the only key, to life everlasting so stop wallowing in your own mire and search Him out. If and when God puts you on your knees then come and tell me it was delusional.

[Prodromos]

John Wycliffe (c. 1320s – 1384), Morning Star of the Reformation

When Wycliffe was 25 years old the plague swept through England like a flood, carrying with it swarms of men, women, children, and animals. The corpses of men and animals lay piling up in graveyards and fields and the economy began to groan under the weight of so much loss and devastation. The effects of the plague deeply touched Wycliffe and he turned to the Scriptures searching for answers not as a scholar searching for intellectual stimulation but as a lost sinner exposed to the stench of death on every hand, seeking for hope and assurance beyond the grave. What he found as he searched the scriptures was not only the blessed assurance of hope in Jesus but also the truth that was able to satisfy every other longing of his soul and it was this time of wrestling with God’s word that prepared Wycliffe for the work that was ahead of him.

Wycliffe’s work encompassed a broad spectrum of issues, ranging from the abuse of power by the Papacy, its blasphemous and false claim to infallibility, and the hypocritical, greed and power mongering of its monastic system, but the most significant thing that Wycliffe championed was that of the right and privilege of every man to read and understand the word of God individually. This was the foundation upon which the entire Reformation was built.

Wycliffe fully expected to die a martyr’s death. “Why do you talk of seeking the crown of martyrdom afar?” he said. “Preach the gospel of Christ to haughty prelates, and martyrdom will not fail you. What! Should I live and be silent? … Never! Let the blow fall, I await its coming.” But despite his waiting, the blow never fell and he died peacefully in his parish at Lutterworth.

The Papacy, however, was out for blood and they would extract it, even if it meant prying it from his lifeless corpse. They had been too busy dealing with the embarrassment of the Papal Schism while Wycliffe was alive to offer him a decent Martyrdom but at the Council of Constance, convened in 1415 for the purpose of resolving the Schism, the heresy of John Wycliffe was at the top of the agenda. It was decreed that his bones be exhumed, cursed, relegated to the farthest parts of Hell and then burnt to ashes.

To Love Jesus, by John Wycliffe:



Wycliffe's followers, known as Lollards, followed his lead in advocating predestination and iconoclasm, while attacking the veneration of saints, the sacraments, requiem masses, transubstantiation, monasticism, and the very existence of the Papacy.

The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards:

The text summarizes twelve areas in which the Lollards argued that the Christian Church in England needed reform.

First conclusion: state of the Church
The first conclusion asserts that the English Church has become too involved in affairs of temporal power, led by the bad example of the Church of Rome.

Second conclusion: the priesthood
The second conclusion asserts that the ceremonies used for the ordination of priests and bishops are without scriptural basis or precedent.

Third conclusion: clerical celibacy
The third conclusion asserts that the practice of clerical celibacy has encouraged sodomy among the clergy.

Fourth conclusion: transubstantiation
The fourth conclusion asserts that the doctrine of transubstantiation leads to idolatrous worship of everyday objects (the communion wafers).

Fifth conclusion: exorcisms and hallowings
The fifth conclusion asserts that the exorcisms and hallowings carried out by priests are a sort of witchcraft and are incompatible with Christian theology.

Sixth conclusion: clerics in secular offices
The sixth conclusion asserts that it is inappropriate for men who hold high office in the Church to simultaneously hold positions of great temporal power.

Seventh conclusion: prayers for the dead
The seventh conclusion asserts that prayers for the souls of specific individual deceased persons is uncharitable, since it implicitly excludes all the other blessed dead who are not being prayed for, and that the practice of requesting prayers for the dead by making financial contributions is a sort of bribery that corrupts the Church.

Eighth conclusion: pilgrimages
The eighth conclusion asserts that the practices of pilgrimage and the veneration of relics at best are ineffectual for spiritual merit and at worst approach idolatry in their worship of created objects.

Ninth conclusion: confession
The ninth conclusion asserts that the practice of confession for the absolution of sins is blasphemous, because only God has the power to forgive sins, and because if priests did have that power it would be cruel and uncharitable of them to withhold that forgiveness from anyone in the world, even if they refused to confess.

Tenth conclusion: war, battle and crusades
The tenth conclusion asserts that Christians should refrain from warfare, and in particular that wars given religious justifications, such as crusades, are blasphemous because Christ taught men to love and forgive their enemies.

Eleventh conclusion: female vows of continence and abortion
The eleventh conclusion asserts that women in the Church who have made vows of celibacy are having sex, becoming pregnant, and then seeking abortions to conceal the fact that they have broken their vows, a practice which the text strongly condemns.

Twelfth conclusion: arts and crafts
The twelfth conclusion asserts that Christians are devoting too much of their energy and attention to the making of beautiful objects of art and craft, and that people should simplify their lives and renew their devotion to godliness by refraining from unnecessary endeavors.

[Akar]

Akar,

No, I have never tried LSD or DMT whatever that is. It's hard for you to understand what you have never experienced simply because you are on the outside trying to see what you cannot. So, of course it's all dilusional to you and so you must tear it all down as best as you can just like Dawkins and many others. May I also say that there is nothing mysterious about God because it's all there in the Bible once you get past the dead letter. Jesus Christ is the key, the only key, to life everlasting so stop wallowing in your own mire and search Him out. If and when God puts you on your knees then come and tell me it was delusional.

I couldn't care less about life everlasting. Sounds boring as hell. I have no interest in searching out god because if even a fifth of the bible is accurate then he's not worth giving the time of day.

[basics]

I couldn't care less about life everlasting. Sounds boring as hell. I have no interest in searching out god because if even a fifth of the bible is accurate then he's not worth giving the time of day.

Akar,

Well, if you couldn't really care less about life and God why are you constantly writing on these threads about Him and everlasting life? It is obvious you do care because for some reason you just can't let it go. I couldn't care less about many things yet I don't spend any time writing about them yet you on the other hand seem to be obsessed by it all and by that I mean God and what is written about Him. Can you explain that?

[Akar]

Well, if you couldn't really care less about life and God why are you constantly writing on these threads about Him and everlasting life?

First of all, I didn't say I don't care about life I said I don't care about "life everlasting".

Secondly, I don't care about god but I do care about fact, truth, and the scientific method; all of which are entirely contradictory to the notion of a biblical creation. So while I don't care about god, the bible, or "life everlasting" I do care when people say things that are blatantly, provably, and observably false. I don't really "care" about the moon landing either, but if someone starts spouting off nonsense conspiracy about it I'd probably say something.

I couldn't care less about many things yet I don't spend any time writing about them yet you on the other hand seem to be obsessed by it all and by that I mean God and what is written about Him.

Sun Tzu says that to defeat your enemy, you must know him. The truth is that sometimes the best way to be able to discount something is to learn about it fully. You can't disprove something that you know nothing about. You, for example, rail against science and evolution all the time but have proved numerous times that you know nothing about the subject matter which you criticize; making your arguments baseless and unsubstantiated.

[basics]

Akar,

Yes of course you believe in a science that cannot prove how we got here or where we are going but that doesn't matter, why? Well they're scientists aren't they and so they must be believed. I mean no evidence for a big bang so let's assume it. No evidence for evolution so let's assume it. Ole fella, there is more evidence for God not only on this planet but in the stars as well but that doesn't matter because the scientists must be right at all costs. Maybe it doesn't come across very well but I happpen to have read much about your side as I have about my Godly side so perhaps again you assume far too much. There was a time when my life was on your side of the fence but God revealed Jesus Christ to me opening my eyes and experience to a much different mode of thought.

[Akar]

that cannot prove how we got here

It can, as I have repeatedly shown to you throughout our discussions.

Well they're scientists aren't they and so they must be believed

No, it's not that they "must" be believed, it's that there is no reason to doubt their findings on this matter. Especially when even a layman can examine the evidence presented and see that it is decisively and completely in favor of the scientific method.

I mean no evidence for a big bang so let's assume it.

Again, I have presented you evidence on numerous occasions and you seem to either not read it, or intentionally ignore it.

No evidence for evolution so let's assume it.

Once more, I have presented you evidence for evolution numerous times, and yet you still repeat this bull that there is no evidence.

there is more evidence for God not only on this planet but in the stars as well

Sorry, what evidence is there in the stars exactly?

Maybe it doesn't come across very well but I happpen to have read much about your side as I have about my Godly side so perhaps again you assume far too much.

If it doesn't come across well and you're completely incapable of conveying your understanding of the topic on any level then maybe it's fair to say that you haven't actually read as much as you think you have? Or maybe that if your understanding of "my side" is as deep as your understanding of your "godly side" then your understanding of god isn't so deep after all.

[basics]

Akar,

No, what you repeat repeatedly is what is assumed by science. Have a wee browse at James Tour's Origin of Life.

The reason to doubt their findings is that they were not there at creation yet Jesus Christ was.

Regarding explosions I do know a little. For a start one needs the components to make one. Since these didn't exist before the big bang where did they come from. I believe many scientists have now come round to the idea that there was a beginning whereas before it was said there was as the bible claims, nothing.

If evolution actually was an ongoing thing where are the transitionals. Every single one thrown up has been proved to be wrong or fake, so where are these proofs of an evolving species of any sort? We know things within their kind adapt but that's as far as it gets ole chap. You know I often say to other dog walkers that if evolution was true then why after billions of years have our dogs never learned to pick ip their own poo. Indeed why do those that we are supposed to be closely linked, like monkeys, don't address that problem as we have to? As humans made in the image of God, He addressed that problem for us by giving us our health and safety rules because He made us superior to the rest of creation.

Now look up and see the sun, our sun and moon and think of the mathematics that rule how our earth and them exist together. Big bangs or any bangs are chaotic by nature and so the mathematical odds of that happening by chance are themselves so astronomical as to be classed as impossible.

At 77 I guess I have read more books than you have had hot dinners most of them up until my conversion being history so I am not a scientist nor do I claim to be. Since my conversion and having a hunger for the truth I have made it a point to get as much information as possible, so whether books, TV, or Youtube, even speaking to the Assistant Chief Rabbi of Great Britain as well as others, I have come to the conclusion that God's word is quite right.

Now as this Husky of mine keeps pressing this keyboard I'll have to finish and get him out for his walk so, have a good day.

[Akar]

No, what you repeat repeatedly is what is assumed by science.

Well, no. It's not "assumed" because it's backed up by proven facts and data.

The reason to doubt their findings is that they were not there at creation yet Jesus Christ was.

So you have to see something to believe it then? If I dropped a rock into a lake and you didn't see me do it, but you saw the ripples on the water it's reasonable to assume that I did throw a rock there. And you could follow the ripples on the water back to the source of the disturbance and find where I threw the rock in initially. The same thing can be done on a much larger and more complex scale with the Big Bang.

Since these didn't exist before the big bang where did they come from

This is incorrect. There WAS something before the big bang, it's just impossible due to the way physics works to observe what happened at any moment before the exact moment after the big bang happened. However, as I've mentioned before you can extrapolate backwards from where we are now to then and figure out what took place. The big bang doesn't postulate that there was nothing, it postulates there was everything in a single super dense cluster of matter called a singularity which then exploded - the big bang.

As for the idea of where that initial matter came from it's impossible to state for sure but Lawrence Krauss postulates in A Universe from Nothing that since the combination of matter and antimatter is nothing, one can logically deduce that given enough time nothing can arise into matter and antimatter. Now mind you I'm paraphrasing what he said very poorly here, but that's the gist of it. So it's disingenuous (bordering on outright wrong) to say there isn't any evidence for this kind of thinking, because there is.

If evolution actually was an ongoing thing where are the transitionals.

Every single person and animal is in a sense one of the "transitionals". It's difficult to draw the line from when one species becomes another. If you looked at a picture of everyone and everything that ever lived from the beginning of time until now there would be no discernible point at which you could say "aha, that's a different species than the previous one", only when you look at individual slices of the timeline and compare them do you start to notice these differences. If you were observing these changes in real time they would occur so slowly that you wouldn't even notice.

All of that aside, there are "transitionals" found all the time. This nonsense about a "missing link" disproving the entire notion of evolution is ridiculously outdated and illogical.

Every single one thrown up has been proved to be wrong or fake

This is an outright lie, and I would expect better even from you.

You know I often say to other dog walkers that if evolution was true then why after billions of years have our dogs never learned to pick ip their own poo

I assume they laugh at you right afterwards for saying something so ignorant?

Let's just dissemble that bit by bit.

1. We have definitive evidence of domesticated dogs from 14,200 years ago, with other more disputed finds ranging out to 35,000 years ago. This is about a million percent less time than you claim.

2. Evolution doesn't care if something is "good" or "bad" it only cares about whether or not the gene will be carried on to the next generation.

3. Picking up your own poop is a learned behavior that is passed down, not something that is "evolved".

God, what a stupid example.

Indeed why do those that we are supposed to be closely linked, like monkeys, don't address that problem as we have to?

Problems like?

Monkeys and Apes regularly have wars, they have families, play with their children, and use tools. They feel happy and sad, they are ticklish and can understand sign language.

As humans made in the image of God, He addressed that problem for us by giving us our health and safety rules because He made us superior to the rest of creation.

If we are so superior then why do we need the rules in the first place?

Also, I'd love to see you try to eat some road kill or raw meat like a wild animal does and see how much longer you think you are superior to them while you yourself to death.

Big bangs or any bangs are chaotic by nature and so the mathematical odds of that happening by chance are themselves so astronomical as to be classed as impossible.

And yet, we reproduce those conditions every day (or whenever they run tests) in the Large Hadron Collider.

I find it funny that you think you're in a position to tell mathematicians who have already decided something IS possible and have in fact done that very thing, that something is not possible. It takes a lot of balls or a lot of ignorance to tell the entire scientific community that they are wrong.

At 77 I guess I have read more books than you have had hot dinners most of them up until my conversion being history so I am not a scientist nor do I claim to be. Since my conversion and having a hunger for the truth I have made it a point to get as much information as possible, so whether books, TV, or Youtube, even speaking to the Assistant Chief Rabbi of Great Britain as well as others, I have come to the conclusion that God's word is quite right.

It's not about how much you read, but about the quality of what you're reading and the information you glean from it.

Now as this Husky of mine keeps pressing this keyboard I'll have to finish and get him out for his walk so, have a good day.

Woof woof.

[Prodromos]

Shame we don't see conversations like this anymore

[basics]

Akar,

There are many scientists of all fields who believe the Bible account of creation, why? Because in their research evolution does not add up. You wan't to believe that you and the monkey are relatives is fine by me but don't expect me to disbelieve the God Who has saved me from what? Myself and the ridiculous thinking I once had not that far from you. Does the clay tell the Potter what to do or is it the other way round. Your side is the clay in action doing exactly what God determines they do for His glory and so with blinkered eyes and minds they carry on regardless. Evolution is just another big lie just as the big bang is and no there are no transitionals anywhere in this world ever been found or yet to be found, why? Because the Lord God made each to his own kind.

[Akar]

I'm just going to copy paste what I wrote. No reason for me to type something new if you're going to repeat the same tired old again and again.

Nothing about a scientific theory implies a lack of understanding. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Something cannot be a scientific theory if it's not testable and verifiable in accordance with the scientific method. Otherwise it's not science, it's illogical. We can observe evolution in nature and can watch it happening in real time. You don't question people breeding different kinds of dogs together or seem mystified by the idea of breeding two different kinds of tomato together to get a tomato that lasts longer. These are all very simple examples of evolution that have taken place on a quick enough scale that you can observe it in your life time. If you want, I can provide you more examples than that.

As for when we can't observe things in our life times, we have things like fossil records and radiocarbon dating that let us gain an understanding of how things change over time and the differences between modern and ancient creatures. Science is a process and it is never complete. Our understanding of everything grows and evolves over time, just like nature does.

This is not a bandwagon. There is a clear, unified, scientific consensus behind evolution. Don't just take my word for it. In 1966 a petition entitled "is biological evolution a principle of nature that has been well established by science?" in May of 1966, that stated the following,

There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established

This petition was signed by 177 American biologists,

"including George G. Simpson of Harvard University, Nobel Prize Winner Peter Agre of Duke University, Carl Sagan of Cornell, John Tyler Bonner of Princeton, Nobel Prize Winner George Beadle, President of the University of Chicago, and Donald F. Kennedy of Stanford University, formerly head of the United States Food and Drug Administration.^"

Additionally there is "Project Steve" which showed that more scientists with the name Steve or a variant thereof support Evolution than the entirety of the scientists who support intelligent design.

The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007.^[50] This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce.^[51][52] The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1370^[53]) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.^[54]