You initiated this thread with some cheap "chick" kartoons. I have asked you questions with some historical tidbits about your frequently overused self-aclaimed degrees in Bible study and all you can say is:
You do know the difference between presenting an argument based on objective evidence opposed to stating assertions?
Man, you got balls. And this was YOUR thread. You are worthless to a discussion of and about your own presented material.
And I stand by my post. You do not present polemical arguments only assertions.
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct[a] your paths.(Proverbs 3:5-6)
Entirely possible......because the target demographic of this forum is: "Old, angry, white guys, who thrive on hatred and personal attacks, do not admit to wearing adult diapers, and haven't been capable of forming an original thought since those bastard dems brought down Nixon.
But I am hopeful that the absence of stone's regulars can be attributed to reduced computer time at the Arkansas nursing homes, and not anyone's actual demise.
Entirely possible......because the target demographic of this forum is: "Old, angry, white guys, who thrive on hatred and personal attacks, do not admit to wearing adult diapers, and haven't been capable of forming an original thought since those bastard dems brought down Nixon.
What is wrong with white guys. I'm white are you? Just curious.
Oh sure, Jesus just loves us like a little huggy bear leaving a Chick Tract as you do, everywhere you go. Sorry pal, you lose the debate and emotional appeal.
I will answer this post when you frame it in a manner showing some logic. Try it again.
Nope. As the thread title was created this is serious debate. And you do not understand that your "faith" about myths is killing any interest from political posters, but .....
Not a thing! I was simply framing the "tea party" and "conservative" majority demographic as being overwhelmingly old, angry and white.
I could care less about Nixon
Yeah, me too - But I actually heard this angry old white guy wearing a VFW hat and suspenders loudly bitching about something or other, who finished his rant with "...since those bastard dems brought down Nixon..."
LOL
What is old? You know how many years.
being old has nothing to do with years.....being old has everything to do with narrow-mindedness.....IMHO
Yeah, Stone mentioned this a few months ago. Miss O'l Biff Tannen. Last few weeks of posts from him he was deep in the epistles of Paul.
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct[a] your paths.(Proverbs 3:5-6)
But I am hopeful that the absence of stone's regulars can be attributed to reduced computer time at the Arkansas nursing homes, and not anyone's actual demise.
I have to say that was funny. I will note having a mother of nursing home age, with the Boomers heading to managed care facilities the demand for WiFi has increased. It better since the mean age of FR posters is about 65.
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct[a] your paths.(Proverbs 3:5-6)
Oh sure, Jesus just loves us like a little huggy bear
Well Jesus does love you buckeroo:
John 1:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct[a] your paths.(Proverbs 3:5-6)
No. Most folks are seeking answers beyond myth, is all. They are tired of the rants in established churches of and about any faith. If there is a God, established man made churches of any faith are unnecessary for most. If you note, there is waning personal attendence across the spectrum of religion for most churches.
There is also waning belief in churches and increased weird beliefs in churches as well. That doesn't mean Biblical teaching is myth: It does possibly mean that we are in the last days as given in the Book of Revelation.
The Bible is filled with myths. What you have a problem with is simply explained as that a "myth" diminishes the concept of reality (the truth) but that is not the case. All a "myth" is: is a BIG STORY worth listening to because there are some life experiences from which some essential element can be learned. It is not necessarily substantiated by documented FACT or measurable data or objective proof much less any supporting/substantiated data.
What was most instructive about Tuesday night's debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye [watch entire debate here] over the issue of origins was Nye's blanket admission of total, abject ignorance on the most important questions of the evening.
Where did the atoms that made up the Big Bang come from? Nye has no idea. Where did man's consciousness come from? Nye has no idea. How can matter produce life? Nye has absolutely no idea. This surely is all one needs to know to recognize the utter bankruptcy of the theory of evolution.
From the same above source Fossils. Realize that the fossil record is the only tangible, physical evidence for the theory of evolution that exists. The fossil record is it. There is absolutely nothing else Darwinians have they can show you.
As Yale University's Carl Dunbar says, "Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."
But if Darwin's theory is correct that increasingly complex life forms developed in tiny little incremental and transitional steps then the fossil record should be littered with an enormous number of transitional fossils.
Darwin himself said, "The number of intermediate and transitional links must have been inconceivably great."
But, sadly for Darwinians, after more than 150 years of digging in dirt all around the world, there are still no transitional fossils at all, not one! The most famous paleontologist in the world, Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould, said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." (Note" "extreme rarity" is Harvard-speak for "nada, zilch, zippo.")
Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History agrees with Gould that "there are no transitional fossils," not even a single one "for which one could make a watertight argument."
In other words, people who study fossils for a living know there are no transitional forms but they don't want you and me to know it, because it might prompt us to stop imbibing the swill of evolution.
Gould developed an absurd theory called "punctuated equilibrium," a theory that evolution happened so fast, in such rapid bursts, that it left no trace in the fossil record. Imagine that: the only evidence he has for his theory is the total absence of any evidence whatsoever! And this guy taught at Harvard!
What the fossil record teaches us, in contrast to the theory of evolution, is that increasingly complex life forms appear fully formed in the fossil record, just as if they were put there by a Creator. This is especially true of what is called the "Pre-Cambrian Explosion," the vast, overwhelming, and quite sudden appearance of complex life forms at the dawn of time. Evolutionists are at a total loss to explain the Pre-Cambrian Explosion.
The biblical record indicates quite clearly that all things, including increasingly complex life forms, came fully formed from the hand of God.
Thus the fossil record is a powerful argument for the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer while at the same time being fatal for the theory of evolution.
Creation Science and Intelligent Design theory have an explanation for the fossil record; evolution does not.
Then there was this from the same source. Only a FOOL believes evolution is compatible with science or the Bible.
Genes. The only mechanism don't miss this the only mechanism evolutionists have to explain the development of increasingly complex life forms is genetic mutation. Mutations alter DNA, and these alterations can be passed on to descendants.
The problem: naturally occurring genetic mutations are invariably harmful if not fatal to the organism. Rather than improve an organism's capacity to survive, they invariably weaken it. That's why the phrase we most often use to refer to genetic mutations is "birth defects."
If scientists are some day able to engineer beneficial genetic mutations in the lab, that will simply prove our point: we told you it takes intelligence and design.
Catch these two quotes. First, evolutionary microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, only a variety of wishful speculations."
And this from University of Bristol scientist Alan Linton: "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another." (Note: "none" means "none, nada, zilch, zippo.")
And if it's never been observed in the simplest of all organisms, it shouldn't come as a surprise that it's never been observed with more complex forms. Says Linton, "There is no evidence for evolution throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." (Note: "no evidence" means "no evidence, nada, zilch, zippo.")
So honest Darwinians will tell you that evolution by which we mean the transition of one species into another has never, not ever, been observed by anyone at any time. In other words, they believe in something that nobody has ever seen. Hmmm... And they accuse us of a blind leap of faith!
It turns out that creationists are the ones who believe in science. In fact, it's clear that creationists believe in science and evolutionists do not. If they did, they wouldn't be evolutionists, now, would they?
Bottom line: the easiest verse in the Bible to believe is the very first one of all: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Myths are largely cultural in origin and may be emulated by conquered societies. As for the myths presented in the Bible, they aren't of Jewish origin; many of the earliest are borrowed from the Babylonians which are known to be of Aryan origin. As you know the Jews were marched off to Babylon about 600 BCE [the exile]. That is just about the precise time of creation of the early Hebrew "Bible" called the Tanakh. After the wretched Jews were permitted to go back to their desert paradise (circa 570 BCE), they continued their practice of myth development. Of course, almost all the brighter Jews (at that time) refused to leave Babylon.
The biblical record indicates quite clearly that all things, including increasingly complex life forms, came fully formed from the hand of God.
So what have you suggested? All you have performed is some mystical creature called "God" with a "hand" image creating things.
How do you know, "God" has a "hand" ... because you heard some Jew chit-chat to you about some sheep herder screwing with sheep a couple of thousand years ago?
You forgot to give a reference for your cut-and-paste. Myths are simply stories made up to explain beliefs and actions. Ok, I did that in one short sentence. Isn't that better?