Debating scriptures with non-believers

Many Christians do not believe that Scripture supports the Young Earth Creationist position. This moderated forum is for good natured scholarly debate.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dr_GS_Hurd » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:27 am

A bit over 30 years ago I was in southern Mexico making a film about the Mayan rain ceremony, call Cha Ch'k. My good friend Jose, a local man, and I got into a heated argument with another fellow reputed to be a powerful Brujo. The next morning, just before dawn, Jose's son woke me up to tell me, "The Brujo is killing my dad! Come quick!"

Well, I went right over. Jose was in his hammock, and sweating quite a lot- clearly running a fever. He said, "Gary go pay the Brujo anything he wants or I am going to die." I asked him if he had vomited? He had. I asked if he had diarrhea. He did.

I asked, "Who called the Brujo a dog-fucker?" Jose said, "You did."
I asked, "Who said the Brujo sucked dead men's balls?" Jose said, "You did."

This line of questioning went on for a while, as the Mayan language is very imaginative, and I had been very irritated.

I then asked, "Who is stronger Jose, you or me?" Well he was much stronger than I was. I asked, "Who always gets sick after a few weeks here?" And of course it was myself. "So, if I called the Brujo worse things than you did, and if I get sick anyway, why aren't I sick now?" Jose thought a moment, and said, "Are you sure you are OK?" I nodded. "I probably have the flu," he concluded.

It isn't crazy to think that people can do 'magic' or might be trying to hurt you. It is crazy to deny evidence and reason. Jose was neither crazy, nor stupid.
User avatar
Dr_GS_Hurd
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:45 pm
Location: Dana Point, California

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:28 am

Dr_GS_Hurd wrote:A bit over 30 years ago I was in southern Mexico making a film about the Mayan rain ceremony, call Cha Ch'k. My good friend Jose, a local man, and I got into a heated argument with another fellow reputed to be a powerful Brujo. The next morning, just before dawn, Jose's son woke me up to tell me, "The Brujo is killing my dad! Come quick!"

Well, I went right over. Jose was in his hammock, and sweating quite a lot- clearly running a fever. He said, "Gary go pay the Brujo anything he wants or I am going to die." I asked him if he had vomited? He had. I asked if he had diarrhea. He did.

I asked, "Who called the Brujo a dog-fucker?" Jose said, "You did."
I asked, "Who said the Brujo sucked dead men's balls?" Jose said, "You did."

This line of questioning went on for a while, as the Mayan language is very imaginative, and I had been very irritated.

I then asked, "Who is stronger Jose, you or me?" Well he was much stronger than I was. I asked, "Who always gets sick after a few weeks here?" And of course it was myself. "So, if I called the Brujo worse things than you did, and if I get sick anyway, why aren't I sick now?" Jose thought a moment, and said, "Are you sure you are OK?" I nodded. "I probably have the flu," he concluded.

It isn't crazy to think that people can do 'magic' or might be trying to hurt you. It is crazy to deny evidence and reason. Jose was neither crazy, nor stupid.

Dr Hurd
Is this directed at me?
I wondered what you thought of this situation? What did you make of it? Did you think it was real that a person can affect an other person from a distance?
As a scientists that only can detect natural events, I wonder do you think something like that could be detected if looked for, by science? Do you think this is beyond what the scientists look for?
Do you think that food or drink were contaminated, by this other person?
Or do you think this Brujo, had some power that you have no explanation for? From this event do you think this is possible?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:07 am

MrDunday wrote:Yes but why did he get fired in the first place? That really is the point, and to get hired, again means he was considered a respected scientists.I have mentioned about scientists that say the creation word, and i have some of you say what idiots they are. And what an idiot I am for believing in creation. Do you see the attitude? Time and again I hear this from those that believe in what the scientists are saying. The other problem is, this tells you that the science is interpreted by the scientists. On both sides.
I left website links where I go those from. I just brought out the part that I noticed.
I hope you guys do the same, because I would like to know what part of a paper, you felt was important. It makes it easier and more to the point.


Your reply is garbage. No scientist "believes" in evolution. You haven't a clue about what you are talking.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby cathy » Tue Mar 20, 2012 8:57 am

Mr Dunday you are nearly as moronic as our other creationist Marc. Tho not as moronic as you do at least seem to have the excuse of genuine stupidity and ignorance of even basic science in your favour whereas as he is wilfully ignorant which is far more unforgivable.

I can't be bothered with you any more.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:59 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
MrDunday wrote:Yes but why did he get fired in the first place? That really is the point, and to get hired, again means he was considered a respected scientists.I have mentioned about scientists that say the creation word, and i have some of you say what idiots they are. And what an idiot I am for believing in creation. Do you see the attitude? Time and again I hear this from those that believe in what the scientists are saying. The other problem is, this tells you that the science is interpreted by the scientists. On both sides.
I left website links where I go those from. I just brought out the part that I noticed.
I hope you guys do the same, because I would like to know what part of a paper, you felt was important. It makes it easier and more to the point.


Your reply is garbage. No scientist "believes" in evolution. You haven't a clue about what you are talking.

If that is the case there is no such thing as 'evolution' . It is a myth.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:40 pm

cathy wrote:Mr Dunday you are nearly as moronic as our other creationist Marc. Tho not as moronic as you do at least seem to have the excuse of genuine stupidity and ignorance of even basic science in your favour whereas as he is wilfully ignorant which is far more unforgivable.

I can't be bothered with you any more.

I know what the scientists say and I know the science. But what they say is impossible, and we don't see it today, or do we have a record of it from the past.
So who really are the ones that have a "genuine stupidity and ignorance of basic science" (your words not mine) I don't think the scientists are stupid . But I do think they have abandoned basic science, and have effectively blinded themselves.
You say theses things but don't back them up with something.
Start with why you think life could just happen as the scientists say. I say it was creation.A cell needs to be complete to function, and the scientists say there was no 'evolution' in the origins of life. Then there is a problem because, RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA. This is a catch 22 situation.
I would suggest that you look at an animation of cells, to see what goes on.
http://www.xvivo.net/the-inner-life-of-the-cell/

The claim of this site is about science education. So use science to explain how a cell could just happen ?
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby jon_12091 » Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:58 pm

MrDunday wrote:So use science to explain how a cell could just happen ?

Ultimately 'God of Gaps' and/or an argument from ignorance. Just because you can't conceive of how something occurred doesn't preclude God, even when badly caricatured as a magic sky fairy, or indeed other humans being smart enough to come up with some hypothesis's.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:45 pm

jon_12091 wrote:
MrDunday wrote:So use science to explain how a cell could just happen ?

Ultimately 'God of Gaps' and/or an argument from ignorance. Just because you can't conceive of how something occurred doesn't preclude God, even when badly caricatured as a magic sky fairy, or indeed other humans being smart enough to come up with some hypothesis's.

This is about why the scientists do not know. The scientists have enough knowledge.
If I use a loaf of bread for example, to illustrate this.
If you find a loaf of bread. You hypothesize how that bread just happened on it's own naturally. After all it is made from readily abundant materials. With the scientists method of research, they can not detect that it was made. So they come to the conclusion, that it must have happened, by chance. But they could never prove it.
So I am not saying because the scientists don't know how it happened, that I believe in a God. Creation has its own evidence. In the case of the bread, creation can do it. So the actual evidence we have, says it was creation. Now if the scientist find life just happening without their interference, or from any other life, then they will have the evidence they want. But at this point there is no evidence that a loaf of bread could happen.
So for scientists that claim to go by evidence, they have to say that bread was created. Even though they have no method of detecting ID, and they say they don't have too.
This is the same for cells. That is why if you press them, in the end they have to say creation is possible. They don't like to say it, because that casts doubt on their ideas of the origins of life, and also 'evolution'. Because 'evolution' demands that the origins has to be from non creation.
The real problem is that the scientists do not want the origins to be from creation, so they developed a method of research that does not even consider it.
So this is not about lack of evidence for creation because there is plenty of that.Just look at all the plant life and animal life. But it is about the scientists blindness to it. They are not stupid , and for most part not intentionally promoting a false answer by the stand they take, but through education and peer pressure, they are groomed to fit in with the main stream.
That is why we get all of the missing links that go missing. And in some cases the pressure to make a name and get proof, some have actually promoted a fraud.
So it is not that the scientist don't know, it is about why they don't know.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:14 pm

MrDunday wrote:I know what the scientists say and I know the science. But what they say is impossible, and we don't see it today, or do we have a record of it from the past.


You utterly scientifically illiterate and don't know how scientists think. You've not asked a single scientists here what they think.

You don't even know what science is, don't know what a hypothesis is and don't know what a theory is.

You've absolutely no background or training in chemistry, physics, biology or geology. You don't even understand religion.

You don't take a blind bit of notice anyone else here and your tedious effort at "debate" consists exclusively of endlessly repeating yourself, ad rectum, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

You can't even string a sentence, let alone a coherent argument, together.

Yet you think everyone here is an idiot too stupid to know what they are talking about.

There isn't anyone here who thinks that you are anything but an arrogant fraud and phoney.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby jon_12091 » Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:04 pm

MrDunday wrote:f you find a loaf of bread. You hypothesize how that bread just happened on it's own naturally. After all it is made from readily abundant materials. With the scientists method of research, they can not detect that it was made. So they come to the conclusion, that it must have happened, by chance. But they could never prove it.
So I am not saying because the scientists don't know how it happened, that I believe in a God. Creation has its own evidence. In the case of the bread, creation can do it. So the actual evidence we have, says it was creation. Now if the scientist find life just happening without their interference, or from any other life, then they will have the evidence they want. But at this point there is no evidence that a loaf of bread could happen.

Bread is a really bad analogy because its shows clear evidence of having been made from components that have been subject to processing by an external agency. The same evidence is utterly absent from the Earth, unless you'd care to actually present some. The Earth and its many lifeforms are NOT a loaf of bread.

I ask you as a fellow Christian please stop 'preaching' this rubbish as it embarrasses and shames yourself and your brothers and sisters in Christ, and damages the universal Church.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:59 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
MrDunday wrote:I know what the scientists say and I know the science. But what they say is impossible, and we don't see it today, or do we have a record of it from the past.


You utterly scientifically illiterate and don't know how scientists think. You've not asked a single scientists here what they think.

You don't even know what science is, don't know what a hypothesis is and don't know what a theory is.

You've absolutely no background or training in chemistry, physics, biology or geology. You don't even understand religion.

You don't take a blind bit of notice anyone else here and your tedious effort at "debate" consists exclusively of endlessly repeating yourself, ad rectum, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

You can't even string a sentence, let alone a coherent argument, together.

Yet you think everyone here is an idiot too stupid to know what they are talking about.

There isn't anyone here who thinks that you are anything but an arrogant fraud and phoney.

I have never thought any of you or the scientists are idiots.
That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that the scientists and people that follow them, have effectively blinded themselves. They have developed a method of research that only allows one conclusion, with out even looking into it. Then they say we don't have too. Because they have done this, it also means that the hypothesis, of 'evolution' demands (because of their predetermined stand of no creation) that the origins of life have to be from non creation, before even looking at the evidence. That is circular thinking, based on intentionally not looking into ID.
So what you have are blind guides , that is supported by circular reasoning's.
Yet there is no evidence for either.
Take a look at animations of how cells work, how can you say that just happened and without 'evolution'. The scientists admit, they really don't know how this could just happen.
They have had 150 years and big money to look into this, and they still say we don't know.
You can't prove something that didn't happen.
Some scientists have pulled off deliberate frauds, to get a name and the desire to try and prove non creation. They did this because there is no solid evidence for what the scientists say. Because all the missing links keep going missing.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Roger Stanyard » Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:25 pm

MrDunday wrote:
That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that the scientists and people that follow them, have effectively blinded themselves. They have developed a method of research that only allows one conclusion, with out even looking into it. Then they say we don't have too. Because they have done this, it also means that the hypothesis, of 'evolution' demands (because of their predetermined stand of no creation) that the origins of life have to be from non creation, before even looking at the evidence. That is circular thinking, based on intentionally not looking into ID.
So what you have are blind guides , that is supported by circular reasoning's.
Yet there is no evidence for either.
Take a look at animations of how cells work, how can you say that just happened and without 'evolution'. The scientists admit, they really don't know how this could just happen.
They have had 150 years and big money to look into this, and they still say we don't know.
You can't prove something that didn't happen.
Some scientists have pulled off deliberate frauds, to get a name and the desire to try and prove non creation. They did this because there is no solid evidence for what the scientists say. Because all the missing links keep going missing.


And his response - to keep repeating himself! Yet again for the nth millionth time.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:15 pm

jon_12091 wrote:
MrDunday wrote:f you find a loaf of bread. You hypothesize how that bread just happened on it's own naturally. After all it is made from readily abundant materials. With the scientists method of research, they can not detect that it was made. So they come to the conclusion, that it must have happened, by chance. But they could never prove it.
So I am not saying because the scientists don't know how it happened, that I believe in a God. Creation has its own evidence. In the case of the bread, creation can do it. So the actual evidence we have, says it was creation. Now if the scientist find life just happening without their interference, or from any other life, then they will have the evidence they want. But at this point there is no evidence that a loaf of bread could happen.

Bread is a really bad analogy because its shows clear evidence of having been made from components that have been subject to processing by an external agency. The same evidence is utterly absent from the Earth, unless you'd care to actually present some. The Earth and its many lifeforms are NOT a loaf of bread.

I ask you as a fellow Christian please stop 'preaching' this rubbish as it embarrasses and shames yourself and your brothers and sisters in Christ, and damages the universal Church.

The only reason the scientists say bread is clear evidence of creation, is because they know man creates it.
But with their methods of research, of, not even considering ID, they would have to say bread just happened.They have no choice, but to say that. That is also assuming that the materials that went in to bread, just happened also.
They don't know God and what he is capable of, so they don't see the evidence of creation. And then backed by a method that does not even look for it.

jon,.. many churches and religions, say different things about the understanding of the bible and science. Many of things the churches have said and done, have misrepresented God and science, have given Christianity a bad name.
This is not just me saying that, the bible says that.

2 Thessalonians 2:3

Amplified Bible (AMP)

3Let no one deceive or beguile you in any way, for that day will not come except the [a]apostasy comes first [unless the predicted greatfalling away of those who have professed to be Christians has come] , and the[b] man of lawlessness (sin) is revealed, who is the son of doom (of perdition),


What this says is that churches that started off following Jesus, will actually become apostate, which means churches at one time knew the truth, but now teach false understandings.
So this is talking about Christianity. It does not mean all Christians are like that, because the bible says some will be saved. The man of lawlessness in this verse is important.
Because what it means is that, following the apostles’ death, “the man of lawlessness” came out into the open with his religious hypocrisy and false teachings.
If you know from the bible the Pharisees set themselves up to teach the 'Laws", but what they did is make up a lot of their own ideas. That is why Jesus condemned the nation and followers of all nation could follow Jesus.

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12

Amplified Bible (AMP)

9The coming [of the lawless one, the antichrist] is through the activity and working of Satan and will be attended by great power and with all sorts of [pretended] miracles and signs and delusive marvels--[all of them] lying wonders--
10And by unlimited seduction to evil and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing (going to perdition) because they did not welcome the Truth but refused to love it that they might be saved. 11Therefore God sends upon them a misleading influence, a working of error and a strong delusion to make them believe what is false, 12In order that all may be judged and condemned who did not believe in [who refused to adhere to, trust in, and rely on] the Truth, but [instead] took pleasure in unrighteousness.


The Pharisees picture, Christians today they have set themselves up as teaching the 'Laws' of God. But just like the Pharisees did, they make up their own ideas, like 'evolution' and 'abiogenesis'.Where God is very clear on this, he showed the different time periods and said he did the creating. So the ones saying that are teaching sayings that are actually the opposite, of what God said.
One other very important understanding is that Satan is the ruler of the world. That means all false religions , governments, financial, scientists and entertainment etc.


Ephesians 2:2

Amplified Bible (AMP)

2In which at one time you walked [habitually]. You were following the course and fashion of this world [were under the sway of the tendency of this present age], following the prince of the power of the air. [You were obedient to and under the control of] the [demon] spirit that still constantly works in the sons of disobedience [the careless, the rebellious, and the unbelieving, who go against the purposes of God].

This is saying the world of man is influenced by Satan. So that even the 'air' meaning "the thinking of this world" is influenced by him.


John 12:31

Amplified Bible (AMP)

31Now the judgment (crisis) of this world is coming on [sentence is now being passed on this world]. Now the ruler (evil genius, prince) of this world shall be cast out (expelled).

Jesus said that Satan is the ruler of the earth. This makes sense when you look at the condition of man, and the condition of the earth, that Satan is the ruler.


Jesus said:
John 14:30

Amplified Bible (AMP)

30I will not talk with you much more, for the prince (evil genius, ruler) of the world is coming. And he has no claim on Me. [He has nothing in common with Me; there is nothing in Me that belongs to him, and he has no power over Me.]

This idea is said in this verse also, that Satan is the ruler.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby MrDunday » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:26 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:
MrDunday wrote:
That is not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that the scientists and people that follow them, have effectively blinded themselves. They have developed a method of research that only allows one conclusion, with out even looking into it. Then they say we don't have too. Because they have done this, it also means that the hypothesis, of 'evolution' demands (because of their predetermined stand of no creation) that the origins of life have to be from non creation, before even looking at the evidence. That is circular thinking, based on intentionally not looking into ID.
So what you have are blind guides , that is supported by circular reasoning's.
Yet there is no evidence for either.
Take a look at animations of how cells work, how can you say that just happened and without 'evolution'. The scientists admit, they really don't know how this could just happen.
They have had 150 years and big money to look into this, and they still say we don't know.
You can't prove something that didn't happen.
Some scientists have pulled off deliberate frauds, to get a name and the desire to try and prove non creation. They did this because there is no solid evidence for what the scientists say. Because all the missing links keep going missing.


And his response - to keep repeating himself! Yet again for the nth millionth time.

Well there is one answer. And everything points to that one answer.
Many have come at this from different directions, when they what about this, or what about that. The answer is the same, creation.
The whole idea of man searching for a God or making one up, all supports creation, it was built in us to have that need. The scientist have just put themselves up in place of God. But as I mentioned in my last post that Satan is the ruler of the earth, and the spirit of the 'air' so that means everything is based on a lie. As Satan is called the father of the lie.
Science is just a small part of this. If you look at the whole picture,think of it as a large puzzle, science would be a few pieces in the sky and a few in the ground, but you don't need them to see what the whole picture is. But at the same time the science also has to fit.
So it is the same answer.
MrDunday
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:27 pm

Re: Debating scriptures with non-believers

Postby Dagsannr » Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:31 pm

The Book of Natman, chapter 2 verse 13:

Evolution is true, lo, because it's in a holy book. I don't give a damn if you don't believe in it, it's written, therefore my followers will use it and claim it's good evidence. Amen
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

PreviousNext

Return to Scripture Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests