Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What's wrong with church

Tree's and grass are not left out of the Theory of Evolution, they are just part of the Plant, not the Animal Kingdoms.

What's wrong with church is that it really isn't in most cases. Most church gatherings have became social events and/or much to-do about nothing. Like most of this thread. Does it really make a difference if the Earth is a billion years old or a few thousand? That, gents, is the past. Get yourselves concerned about the future or yours may end up with you spending an eternity in hell, whether or not you want to believe it.

Today's gatherings are so far from the early church meetings that there is no semblance. Early gatherings and a few modern ones stuck to God's word instead of man's. That is the BIG problem. So, man is the problem. Plain and simple.

smokepole,

You are just too smart for me. I have never attended a conference, much less presented a paper.



I think the second to the last one will answer your question.

Nice try again Ringman, but no, it most certainly does not answer my question. I found it on-line.

Try again.

Sorry, man. Maybe next time I will get it right.

No, you won't. You'll continue to stick your fingers in your ears and scream la la la the earth is 6000 years old regardless of the evidence. It's who you are.

billhilly,

You and I have the same evidence. I choose to understand it correctly. When something contradicts your preconceived opinion you reject it.

I don't have any preconceived opinions of how the world works. I did briefly entertain the idea that the scientific evidence would somehow mesh with this bronze age book I was taught as a child to believe but that idea became absurd as I became a man and gave up childish things.
You're not only laughably wrong, you are deceitful and disingenuous in your arguments. You know damned well that you have a basis in your bible for what you believe is true and you accept or reject any and all evidence, speculation, and bullshit, based on whether or not it fits your interpretation of the scriptures. Stop pretending otherwise, that's a sin isn't it?

billhilly,



You remind me of something Regan said, "It's not that they're ignorant. It's just they know so much that is not true."

You fall into the same catagory. I didn't become a creationist until I was about twenty-five or twenty-six years old. Up till then I considered myself an athiestic evolutionist. Some evidence by an evolutionist contradicted some idea of another evolutionist which caused me much consternation. I consulted a psychiatrist. My experience is similar to Dr. Jon Sanford who wrote the book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. I am willing to bet $10 he is more educated than you and hold more patents than you in science.

So no. I don�t know what I post is incorrect anymore than you think what you post is incorrect. You and I are exactly the same as far as that goes. The difference is I have the scientific fact on my side.

We really have to hold a get together where you and Ringman are the floor show. It would kill...

Why break your streak? You're batting 1000, and on a roll.

Hit it on the head.

So a highly-educated physicist presented some scientific research (which , oh by the way, has zero to do with the subject being discussed) at some conferences. Coincidentally, he believes the earth to be 6,000 years old.

Never mind the other 499 highly-educated physicists who also attended and presented papers who believe no such thing. Their opinions are wrong; it's the one guy whose opinion counts.

Nailed it...!

Do you 'profess' to be a 'Christian' Ringman...?

Being laughably wrong is excusable, but being intentionally deceitful and disingenuous isn't.

Here's the problem with what you posted here. I am as serious as a heart attack and believe what I post as much as you believe what you post.

There is a difference though. You and your kind resort to name calling and denigration. I try to show facts.

laffin'

That's just MORE of you being intentionally deceitful and disingenuous.

Typical for you.

130 years ago Darwin had only an extremely basic, elementary view of biology and of cells such that most 5th graders today would laugh at what he thought. Yet there are those today, by "faith", still clinging to his teaches on evolution even though his theory fell apart long ago. There is NO biological evidence, NOR archeological evidence to support the theory of evolution! NONE! Not even his precious finches support his theory any longer.

laffin'

Rejecting much of modern science because it conflicts with a strict literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't serve the cause of Christianity.

seemingly, and I could be wrong on this, but we're all missing the larger point, in our own individual ways..

the question remains how did cave man come about, "invent fire-sticks" then advance to building big cities, constructing nuclear devices, and finally finding a way to escape the Earth's gravitational pull.

if those space aliens operating their bases on the dark side of the Moon are laughing at us, I look forward to the day a US Marine arrives and sticks a brown boot up their collective arses.

hopefully we have a sufficient supply of viruses on Earth to defeat any incursion by the extra-terrestrials. I think President Reagin and his wife Nancy might agree.

No way...!

I doubt you are more educated than Dr. Kindell. Many years ago he told me, "Christians have two brains. One is lost and the other is out looking for it." There was no kidding involved and infact an insult was intended. He pesued at least ten fields of study. In everyone he prooved himself wrong. I am not saying he prooved some theory wrong. To his consternation he discovered the fact of science did not fit with what he was taught. He started reading creationist material, and like many others, converted to creationism from evolutionism.

He was not "Rejecting much of modern science because it conflicts with a strict literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't serve the cause of Christianity." He was rejecting what is mascarading as science and being taught to American students from kindergarten through graduate school.

If you think you, or one of your guys, can beat him in a debate on any subject, I will get with him to set it up. All he ask is you have a master's degree or above. He was accused of beating up on uneducated opponents so he made this requirement for further debates. He does not appeal to the Bible to defend his view of science. He does not resort to name calling or denigrating of his opponents. He unapologictically presents unadulterated scientific facts. Let me know.