[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
…murder, slavery among other things which is completely immoral.
[/quote]
Please don’t use the word immoral if you don’t mean it.[/quote]
Please don’t make weird statements and then not explain what the heck you’re talking about.[/quote]
You made a statement of fact about something (moral/immoral, good/evil) that isn’t testable by science. Say something like, ‘these things are risky to participate in.’ Leave the superstitious moral/immoral stuff to us.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]OldManJoe wrote:Tribulus why would I even bother with you when you’re willing to say things like:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Science points directly and inescapably to the God of the bible.[/quote]What is your explanation for saying something so stupid? Do I even want to hear your explanation? Not really. Your opinion means nothing to me after reading your posts. You’re a complete whack. That’s my honest opinion.[/quote]Ok. I did apologize to you on the last page btw. In case you missed it.[/quote]Yes thank you Tribulus. And thank you for private messaging me about the slash I forgot in one of my quote tags…[/quote]Of course. Like I say. It was my fault. While you’re here can I ask you why you have so much confidence in these scientists?
Evolution is proved…plain and simple. Research that site from Lenski’s work at Michigan State. You will laugh at Creationism.
I know God exists. But God despises churches and faiths; those are false idols created by men. If anything is worth worshipping, it is the human mind, esp when it does math and science.[/quote]
Nice equivocation. You point to e-coli evolving into e-coli and then expect us to accept that that somehow provides evidence that all living things share a common ancestor.
It is beyond irresponsible to extrapolate those results to try and prove the grand theory of evolution.[/quote]
Schmichael if you’re too lazy to actually look at evidence then why do you even bother asking for it? [/quote]
Huh? Did you read my post? I did look at the evidence and I pointed out that it doesn’t support the contention that we all share a common ancestor.
If anyone is lazy it is you. Why don’t you demonstrate where I’m wrong instead of merely asserting your ignorant opinion over and over and over and…
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:
…murder, slavery among other things which is completely immoral.
[/quote]
Please don’t use the word immoral if you don’t mean it.[/quote]
Please don’t make weird statements and then not explain what the heck you’re talking about.[/quote]
You made a statement of fact about something (moral/immoral, good/evil) that isn’t testable by science. Say something like, ‘these things are risky to participate in.’ Leave the superstitious moral/immoral stuff to us.[/quote]
I said the Bible condones murder, slavery, stoning, other crazy stuff, and that stuff is immoral. So that brings the whole book into question obviously because if it’s supposed to be the word of God then why does it encourage such horrible and stupid things? Well because it’s not the word of god, it’s the word of the people living at that time and slavery, stoning etc. were apart of that era.
I said the Bible condones murder, slavery, stoning, other crazy stuff, and that stuff is immoral. [/quote]
I know what you said, but you’re supposed to be a man of science, the whole science, and nothing but the science, so help you Darwin. There is no room for things like ‘moral/immoral’ for a scientific thinking man! No moral obligations. No inherent rights. Nothing of the sort.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
What I can say about that article is that I have a lot of learning about the problem of the one and the many. Quite frankly, before reading any of that article I only had a definitional understanding of it. [/quote]
Here is a very brief popular (and accurate) synopsis of Van Til’s view of the problem of the one and the many. http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4369 I am NOT giving it as competition for Joab’s recommendations. Just as additional material. It was from the owner of this website that I first heard of Dr. Cornelius Van Til 24 years ago when we were both much younger men.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]OldManJoe wrote:Tribulus why would I even bother with you when you’re willing to say things like:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Science points directly and inescapably to the God of the bible.[/quote]What is your explanation for saying something so stupid? Do I even want to hear your explanation? Not really. Your opinion means nothing to me after reading your posts. You’re a complete whack. That’s my honest opinion.[/quote]Ok. I did apologize to you on the last page btw. In case you missed it.[/quote]Yes thank you Tribulus. And thank you for private messaging me about the slash I forgot in one of my quote tags…[/quote]Of course. Like I say. It was my fault. While you’re here can I ask you why you have so much confidence in these scientists?
[/quote]
Why would I not have confidence in Science when science is proven and has changed our world drastically? The internet, planes, Radio, this is all science you know. Planes work pretty good, the internet is great isn’t it? Do you believe in the internet? Ever been on a plane? Do you have confidence in planes? I do.
How come you don’t reject those sciences but you reject evolution? There is documented, peer reviewed, scientific evidence for all of these things and evolution is right in there. Scientists didn’t just tell us all this stuff is true and then lie to us about evolution.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< science is proven >>>[/quote]Bear with me please. You have told me that you are not qualified to give me the definitions I asked for. Is that not right?
I said the Bible condones murder, slavery, stoning, other crazy stuff, and that stuff is immoral. [/quote]
I know what you said, but you’re supposed to be a man of science, the whole science, and nothing but the science, so help you Darwin. There is no room for things like ‘moral/immoral’ for a scientific thinking man! No moral obligations. No inherent rights. Nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Ok so you’re just acting childish now very good then way to go.
And yes I can, and everyone can, have morals. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
[quote]OldManJoe wrote:<<< science is proven >>>[/quote]Bear with me please. You have told me that you are not qualified to give me the definitions I asked for. Is that not right?
[/quote]
Why would I not have confidence in Science when science is proven and has changed our world drastically? The internet, planes, Radio, this is all science you know? Planes work pretty good, the internet is great isn’t it? Do you believe in the internet? Ever been on a plane? Do you have confidence in planes? I do.
How come you don’t reject those sciences but you reject evolution? There is documented, peer reviewed, scientific evidence for all of these things and evolution is right in there. Scientists didn’t just tell us all this stuff is true and then lie to us about evolution.
I said the Bible condones murder, slavery, stoning, other crazy stuff, and that stuff is immoral. [/quote]
I know what you said, but you’re supposed to be a man of science, the whole science, and nothing but the science, so help you Darwin. There is no room for things like ‘moral/immoral’ for a scientific thinking man! No moral obligations. No inherent rights. Nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Ok so you’re just acting childish now very good then way to go.
And yes I can, and everyone can, have morals. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
[/quote]
No, only people of faith have morals. You folks have risk assessments (which are subjective).
[quote]OldManJoe:<<< Ken Miller on human evolution >>>[/quote]God on Ken Miller: [quote]The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.[/quote] 1st Corinthians 2:14
It’ll take me a while to get back with ya’ll on the problem of the one and the many. I’ll post about it in either the metaphysics or epistemology thread when I’m ready.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:It’ll take me a while to get back with ya’ll on the problem of the one and the many. I’ll post about it in either the metaphysics or epistemology thread when I’m ready. [/quote]One the longest standing foundational philosophical knots of all. I’m hoping in the future to do a bit more with Kamui. Some would say that every other philosophical issue reduces eventually into the problem of the one and the many. Of course I am a hook line and sinker proponent of Van Til’s solution which I take to be utterly biblical. Craig may even agree with Van Til at this level Joab.
Tribulus, this might be a shock to you but: The Bible isn’t the word of God. It was written by the people of that era without any super natural input whatsoever. This is why the Bible contains all the crap like slavery and stoning, because that was happening at the time. You don’t hear the Bible mentioning “Don’t shoot people”, instead it says “Don’t stone people”. And it says Slavery is allowed because slavery was allowed during that time.
Do you condone slavery and stoning like the Bible does? I already know you don’t so my question is why do you choose to pick out only certain parts of the bible and follow those, and then you ignore the other parts?
I’ll tell you why, it’s because you’re not really using the bible for morals, you’re also just using your own reason and evidence. That very reason and evidence tells you that you would never stone someone for not believing in God, but at the same time it is also against the Bible.
There’s no reason to believe that old expired, obsolete, immoral, unjustified piece of crap book, so stop quoting scripture.
