You don't seem to understand your information is so limited you can't understand how limited it is. Your information is like a grain of sand on the beach of the beach of information. If your information is so obvious name one Ph.D creationist who switched and became an evolutionist. Just one!
It would not be possible for someone who is a creationist to pass a PhD examination for the same reason that someone who insisted the earth was flat and had four corners could not receive a PhD in geography or geology.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
The teacher asked us to write about a book that changed our life; like Huckleberry Finn. I wrote about the Bible. She rejected my paper and appealed to the "separation of church and state." Neither she nor I are in congress so I figured she was too stupid to teach much and dropped the class.
My golly, I find myself agreeing with Ringman! The constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." It means the founders didn't want to have the government REQUIRE belief in any particular religion. That's not the same as forbidding a kid to write a report on the Bible.
Aside from that, I found on another forum many years ago that it's pointless to argue with Ringman. He ignores all facts if they contradict his "Faith," Faith being defined as anything written in whatever version of the Bible he favors. No matter if Science has proven that much of Genesis is a Bronze Age fairy tale, that the Bible contradicts itself many times, and that even Genesis contains two separate creation myths that contradict each other.
You can't defeat Faith with Science or vice versa.
So argue with Ringman about what kind of scope to put on a .300 Magnum or something instead.
Don't blame me. I voted for Trump.
Democrats would burn this country to the ground, if they could rule over the ashes.
The teacher asked us to write about a book that changed our life; like Huckleberry Finn. I wrote about the Bible. She rejected my paper and appealed to the "separation of church and state." Neither she nor I are in congress so I figured she was too stupid to teach much and dropped the class.
My golly, I find myself agreeing with Ringman! The constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." It means the founders didn't want to have the government REQUIRE belief in any particular religion. That's not the same as forbidding a kid to write a report on the Bible.
Aside from that, I found on another forum many years ago that it's pointless to argue with Ringman. He ignores all facts if they contradict his "Faith," Faith being defined as anything written in whatever version of the Bible he favors. No matter if Science has proven that much of Genesis is a Bronze Age fairy tale, that the Bible contradicts itself many times, and that even Genesis contains two separate creation myths that contradict each other.
You can't defeat Faith with Science or vice versa.
So argue with Ringman about what kind of scope to put on a .300 Magnum or something instead.
What does he recommend for scoping a 300 mag? That I should pray about it?
The teacher asked us to write about a book that changed our life; like Huckleberry Finn. I wrote about the Bible. She rejected my paper and appealed to the "separation of church and state." Neither she nor I are in congress so I figured she was too stupid to teach much and dropped the class.
My golly, I find myself agreeing with Ringman! The constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." It means the founders didn't want to have the government REQUIRE belief in any particular religion. That's not the same as forbidding a kid to write a report on the Bible.
Aside from that, I found on another forum many years ago that it's pointless to argue with Ringman. He ignores all facts if they contradict his "Faith," Faith being defined as anything written in whatever version of the Bible he favors. No matter if Science has proven that much of Genesis is a Bronze Age fairy tale, that the Bible contradicts itself many times, and that even Genesis contains two separate creation myths that contradict each other.
You can't defeat Faith with Science or vice versa.
So argue with Ringman about what kind of scope to put on a .300 Magnum or something instead.
What does he recommend for scoping a 300 mag? That I should pray about it?
I think his latest creation is a 300 Ultra mag necked down to 6.5mm.
I don't think he's ever broken an inch with it for 3 rounds, let alone a real group.
He's also shooting some funky 109gr borerider bullet in it.
But considering how there's a fair amount of science involved with shooting........this shouldn't surprise anyone......
Last edited by antelope_sniper; 09/21/18.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The teacher asked us to write about a book that changed our life; like Huckleberry Finn. I wrote about the Bible. She rejected my paper and appealed to the "separation of church and state." Neither she nor I are in congress so I figured she was too stupid to teach much and dropped the class.
My golly, I find myself agreeing with Ringman! The constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." It means the founders didn't want to have the government REQUIRE belief in any particular religion. That's not the same as forbidding a kid to write a report on the Bible.
Aside from that, I found on another forum many years ago that it's pointless to argue with Ringman. He ignores all facts if they contradict his "Faith," Faith being defined as anything written in whatever version of the Bible he favors. No matter if Science has proven that much of Genesis is a Bronze Age fairy tale, that the Bible contradicts itself many times, and that even Genesis contains two separate creation myths that contradict each other.
You can't defeat Faith with Science or vice versa.
So argue with Ringman about what kind of scope to put on a .300 Magnum or something instead.
What does he recommend for scoping a 300 mag? That I should pray about it?
I think his latest creation is a 300 Ultra mag necked down to 6.5mm.
I don't think he's ever broken an inch with it for 3 rounds, let alone a real group.
He's also shooting some funky 109gr borerider bullet in it.
But considering how there's a fair amount of science involved with shooting........this shouldn't surprise anyone......
Lol. Hot damn. That’s like a cross between a RUM and a Creedmore. I’d probably call it a 6.5 CUM;)
The teacher asked us to write about a book that changed our life; like Huckleberry Finn. I wrote about the Bible. She rejected my paper and appealed to the "separation of church and state." Neither she nor I are in congress so I figured she was too stupid to teach much and dropped the class.
My golly, I find myself agreeing with Ringman! The constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." It means the founders didn't want to have the government REQUIRE belief in any particular religion. That's not the same as forbidding a kid to write a report on the Bible.
Aside from that, I found on another forum many years ago that it's pointless to argue with Ringman. He ignores all facts if they contradict his "Faith," Faith being defined as anything written in whatever version of the Bible he favors. No matter if Science has proven that much of Genesis is a Bronze Age fairy tale, that the Bible contradicts itself many times, and that even Genesis contains two separate creation myths that contradict each other.
You can't defeat Faith with Science or vice versa.
So argue with Ringman about what kind of scope to put on a .300 Magnum or something instead.
What does he recommend for scoping a 300 mag? That I should pray about it?
I think his latest creation is a 300 Ultra mag necked down to 6.5mm.
I don't think he's ever broken an inch with it for 3 rounds, let alone a real group.
He's also shooting some funky 109gr borerider bullet in it.
But considering how there's a fair amount of science involved with shooting........this shouldn't surprise anyone......
Lol. Hot damn. That’s like a cross between a RUM and a Creedmore. I’d probably call it a 6.5 CUM;)
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
Ha mostly good. I admit I haven’t read the whole thread, especially skipping all the back and forth with Ringman.
Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye
Evolution is so overwhelmingly evident to any scientifically literate person that it's hard to comprehend how anything but bad faith can explain its rejection by any but the most universally ignorant.
This is worded quite well though. Well played sir.
Suppose that God had Moses write the account of creation in perfect detail. No - not even that....Suppose he instructed him to give just an overview of the process of how He created the system that has creative power built in (as it must to survive beyond "...God finished his work of creation..."). Just how much of that detail would anyone at the time understand? What would people of Moses's time think of the complex design of the cell? What would they think of quantum mechanics? How distracting would that be? Just something to think about as you remember that the point of Genesis is not the "how"?
"Just how much of that detail would anyone at the time understand?" You are missing a lot here. You assume God didn't create Adam to be ten times or fifty times smarter than modern man? If we went back before the Flood in a time machine we would be put in a mental institute for the mentally handicap. God programmed Adam with more information than we can conceive. Adam knew math beyond what our brightest mathematicians understand. You have been brainwashed by the many years of not accepting God at His Word.
Nothing new to me, friend. But we're not talking about Adam here.We're looking at several generations beyond the fall. None of the Bible we have was written before the flood. So it wasn't intended for those intelligent people of whom you speak. That's not my whole point, anyway. If we're going to have a Genesis that amounts to "how did God do it?", it's going to be a lot of reading that is not focused on the Message. Ask yourself - why did God have Moses write Genesis? Now - what should he include? Oh, BTW - what medium was available for writing and storing, and why does that matter?
Ever taken a course in journalistic writing?
We have the answer in God's Word how He did it. He spoke and it happened.
I did take a journalistic writing class in college. The teacher asked us to write about a book that changed our life; like Huckleberry Finn. I wrote about the Bible. She rejected my paper and appealed to the "separation of church and state." Neither she nor I are in congress so I figured she was too stupid to teach much and dropped the class.
No, I did not add the word "listen". Several translations have done that for me. At your prompting, which I suppose is sure to come, I will have to do a study in the Hebrew text to see whether that is incorrect. Please forgive my tendency to not read you as well as I do God's word - my point about your story was not lost, and you know it.
I don't know what I don't know and you can't know what I do know without me stating it.
Well then.......it appears that I have overestimated your comprehension. It also appears your intention is to argue for the sake of arguing. Otherwise, I would think that you might be more curious about what that point was.
Please tell me the point.
I'll try to be more understandable....
You said
Quote
There are numerous people who have come accepted the reality of God by considering the heavenly bodies. I remember one African chief who, while worshiping the sun god, decided..."I am boss here. The witch doctor is second in command. Someday my son will be chief. We are no longer going to worship the sun god or any other god. We are going to worship the Boss God." I was in my early teens when I met the missionary who told me about this. He was an older guy. After he told them about Jesus his tribe, en masse accepted Jesus as the Boss God.
Then I said
Quote
Your witch doctor (correction - chief) studied the heavens enough to convince him of the truth. Good. We continue to study the heavens, and by my reckoning, they still point to a creator - only more forcefully. When the Big Bang theory was announced, atheists were loathe to accept it because it points to a beginning. But it was science that brought it to light. That's history now, and we have progressed beyond even that in knowledge that points to a creator. If that threatens your world view and you have no inclination to introspection and appeals for wisdom yourself (BTW - your assumption that I have not done so is a bad attempt at mind reading), you might consider at least choosing your words more carefully when discussing this with other Christians and atheists as well.
My point?
The Bible states that "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." Also, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse."
I don't take these passages as just emotional homage. I take this more literally. Those same intelligent ancients that you referenced very likely had the means to figure out at least some of what we have learned recently - that the cosmos show evidence of a beginning of time and space. They might just as well have deduced intelligent design by studying nature. Just like your African chief (but probably with more advanced knowledge). There is no reason for us to stop doing the same, even though some people take limited knowledge and (often by choice) make erroneous inferences. As it stands today, the deeper our scientific understanding becomes, the more it points to a Creator - "so that men are without excuse". I have no doubt that the trend will continue.
You don't seem to understand your information is so limited you can't understand how limited it is. Your information is like a grain of sand on the beach of the beach of information. If your information is so obvious name one Ph.D creationist who switched and became an evolutionist. Just one!
It would not be possible for someone who is a creationist to pass a PhD examination for the same reason that someone who insisted the earth was flat and had four corners could not receive a PhD in geography or geology.
Your ignorance is showing. Candidates earn their Ph.D.'s every year. They just keep their true views to themselves. Why? Watch the movie "Expelled!" Don't read about it. Watch it.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
You don't seem to understand your information is so limited you can't understand how limited it is. Your information is like a grain of sand on the beach of the beach of information. If your information is so obvious name one Ph.D creationist who switched and became an evolutionist. Just one!
They only way they can be Creationists is if they've got a screw loose, so what would happen to change that?
Perhaps then you can explain why Ph.D evolutionist switch to become creationist since evolution is so obvious. Can you give it a try without ad hominin?
I have no respect for any scientist who believes in a flat earth either. They are in the same category.
This is suppose to be an intelligent answer? You are an anonomous poster who they don't even know. Your posts are like the wind in the trees: Noise without communication.
Again, name the Ph.D creationist scientist who became an evolutionist and I will name ten evolutionists scientist who became creationist by observing the evidence open mindedly.
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation." Everyday Hunter
Again, name the Ph.D creationist scientist who became an evolutionist and I will name ten evolutionists scientist who became creationist by observing the evidence open mindedly.
The mere fact of being or becoming a "Creationist" indicates a rejection of science. People reject reality for all sorts of reasons. It's not evidence that a fairy tale (the one they adopt in its place) is true. The fairy tale here is the imposition onto the creation account a story line proposed by pre-scientific people, i.e., a hyper literal one.
PS I assume, based on your insistence on absolute literalism, that you agree with the Roman Catholics on the literal transformation of bread and wine into Christ's body and blood during communion service, right? In other words, the bread and wine are not mere figures of his body and blood for our remembrance of his sacrifice on the cross, but literally become his body and blood, only your senses being fooled into still seeing and tasting bread and wine. That's what you believe, right, because you're a literalist in your interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Right?
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."
- John 6:53
"While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, Take and eat; this is my body. Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."
