Isaiah 6:8

This thread has become personal. Closed for review.

No I never said that. Read again, I even put in bold and underlined the IF. this time I'll make it big, red and capital as well so you do not miss it. I never said that was proof. I said IF is said it was there would be other possible explanations. I am saying you have taken even weaker evidence, (missing gas) to claim that it was evidence for a lifeforms unknown and never observed. You are attacking an idea of evidence I never presented as fact or true. You however has offered weaker evidence then that as fact, with out even offering other possible explanations. You then defended it as "But it is evidence" I can not find the thread I'll have to dig it up, however you show your true colors when I have repeated that I did not make such a statement and you keep arguing about a point I did not make. As for the ERV'S.. The fact that you disagree is one thing. The fact that they have another explanation is my point. A point you refuse to take. You keep trying to argue the data, when I am stating that there is two points of view on the same data. You can argue all you want why the other view is invalid, but you refuse to admit there are two points of view on the same data, and that is my point. Yet you keep ignoring or pushing a statement I have made. Also evolution has so many holes in it, but yet you refuse to look at them. Logical holes but yet you over look them or claim that God did work in that matter. Where did that gene come from? You see there is no proof, no evidence outside of it exists. How would two separate beings just so happen to evolve the perfect equal but opposite organs to reproduce at the same time, and be mutually compatible? What are the odds. This fly's in the face of logic yet you embrace it with open arms. I read it, very circular logic. Yes you like to point to the development of everything from a single cell creature. This is improbable at the best impossible at the worst. I'll start another thread later showing how they are all linked. Ah, In other words, you say we should leave God out of science completely. That is fine, however then you need to leave out all other bias as well, and that is what I am speaking of. I have admitted creationists have issues with leaving God out of it. I am stating that evolutionists have an issue of leaving out there pre-conceived Ideas out of it. When they don't know, they need to simply say they do not know but they fill in the gaps with lots of "Time" or stating "it must have happened this way" they say that all the time when they have no evidence of such. Yes your right, however you tend to not do the same? Your assertion is that God used evolution. How does that Gel with your Idea of keeping God out of it? And yet why do you suppose a history of microbiology left out Pasture? Yet you have repeatedly argued with me about a point I never made. You fill in all gaps of evolution by faith and faith alone, that is emotional.

Some christian reminded me of a little piece of wisdom in another thread, whose corollary also applies: Rule #1: Do not personally attack the christian. Rule #2: Claim victory and walk away when the christian insults you. Thank you for providing me with another fine example of your special christian attitude towards me, OES. I always appreciate such fine examples of christian attitude wherever and whenever I encounter it. Regards, UndecidedFrog Actually OES said that you were acting like an idiot, not one. Second of all. He was pointing out the completely illogical response you put forth. You have made better arguments that that, and this one was grasping at straws.

Also since this thread has become personal I am closing it for further review.

Thank you for admitting defeat. To sort out the reasonable from the others, who fling ad hominems and run away. Wonderful Dialog. Regards, UndecidedFrog Or those who show there pure ignorance did you see this. You see that is why OES Is done with him. Because of statements he has made like this.

I did not really want to debate that point. I read the whole paper, that SamVines posted. In a nutshell it said this " We don't know our measurements are faulty" When I posted that it was taking into account the few hundred years of measurements taken by astronomers on the ground. You proved my point however when the first thing you and SamVines did was attempt to disprove it! You did not for once say "oh, I did not know that" However, do you ever try as hard to disprove your own data? I doubt it. I know I don't. As for the waterfall ages Your response to that shows your pure unscientific, bias. The waterfall example was an example of looking at all the data. I even stated as such. You and Sam latched on to that though and tried to disprove something I never said was proof. You went after me for something I did not say! Lets look at what I said and why I said it. I said it because you have put forth just as erroneous data as evidence with out looking at other possible explanations. You have stated that your data was evidence. I stated that I could state data that was evidence of a young earth, then I stated that there were also other explanations and that it was not really evidence. Yet you and Sam latched on and started attacking evidence that I did not put forth. Showing your bias and intellectual dishonesty. You can see what I actually wrote. Again the following shows you miss my point, yet again. The point is this, whether you like it or not there are to points of view as to what they mean and how they fit both models. As you said before about the geocentric verses sun centered earth. The data supports both points of view, but then what is the real meaning. Yes, however you should never interpret your facts through raw emotion. That is what happens in both creation and evolution. If you interpret data by what you want it to be, then it negates it as science. If you interpret data to figure out what model it fits, no matter what one that is, then it is science. How ever you have proven, over and over again that you jump to your preferred model every time and its based on an emotion of you are right and evolution is true and the Bible at least the early part of Genesis is not. Its based on emotion, and I admit my emotion on the subject. However you and Sam and others like Don Fannuchi, (who I have caught lying about facts to prove his point) refuse to admit you look at this emotionally. Again case in point, you tried to disprove something that I already disproved. This shows an emotional response, not a logical one. Ahh.... Now you are stating as a fact that evolution is science, and I am not speaking of speciation, which is observed and scientific. You see you seem to just trust that evolution must have worked when there is no other explanation or data. Just as we say that God must have worked when there is no explanation or data. For instance we know that there sexual reproduction and yet you admit there is no evidence on how this happened by evolution. Also I have noticed that you distance yourself from big logic holes that evolution presents, and you take it by faith. For instance for life to evolve and develop as you claim, it had to start by some means. You have your pick, both are unproven. God or Abogenisis. You see this is something that you like to ignore and back off from, and say it is not related but yet it is, as they are both unproven, and have to be taken by faith, as the only evidence we have for either of them is that yes, there is indeed life on this planet, and it had to come from somewhere. No, they must not. You see naturalism is not Science. It is Philosophy and or a religion. So no we Do not have to line up our ideas with a philosophy that runs against everything we believe. So you want us to trade one religion for another? Again not very scientific. No Most creationists scoff at the idea of God not living his fingerprints. We have no problem with science, with the scientific method. I for one love it and study things and understand a lot of science. So tell me how does choosing to believe that there is a God and evolution is not true, effect things such as, the discovery of penicillin, Electricity, Higher math that lead to computers? Matter of fact one of the my favorite historical scientists, that established what is known as a bastion of science today, the "Royal Academy of Science" Who helped establish the scientific method, Robert Boyle was a Christian who was inspired by the Lord to do what he did, and as well he was a missionary and read the Bible in some of if not all of its original languages, and even commissioned the first translation of the Bible into Gaelic for the Irish. Sir Issac Newton, The Wright Brothers, George Washington Carver, Luis Pasture, Galileo, Joseph Kepler. These were all men of Science, and without whom we would not have science as we know it, and every one of them were Christians working from a Genesis based outlook on life. Matter of fact it was Luis Pasture who proved that life could not spontaneously generate from trash. He is called the father of microbiology, and yet when I was in San Francisco, looking in a museum display about the history of microbiology, his name was not mentioned? Why do you think that was? You see the museum display was also promoting evolution as fact, and it would be an embarrassment to include the man that showed that life can not come from non life. So you see you do not need a "Naturalistic" Outlook on life to be a scientist, or scientific in thought. Again you stating such shows your emotional bais that does not allow you to look at this objectively or scientifically.

I guess that means it's off-topic. I'll start a new thread then. You may , with the direction you are going with it. However you asked I answered.

So you're using a set of morals that you received from God to judge God, and hence you determine that he is good? Do you see the problem here? Yes. I saw you going that direction However, please do not try to derail this thread as you managed to do with the other one, as I have stated before this thread is not about Christians and where we get our morel code. However every atheist to date has started trying to turn this thread around and make it about Christian morals. So, if you are going to post on this thread can you tell me where you get your moral code?

Sorry but how does this all apply to the Moral argument? Can we please try to get back to that topic as there are plenty of Evolution v creation threads elswhere!

That's an interesting question, but another question popped into my head as I was reading it: where do theists get the moral code to judge God by and decide that God is good? I'll start another thread if this question is deemed off-topic. From God. So where do you get your moral code?

Okay, the way this thread has run its course is proof of my point. The second an evolutionist sees data he does not agree with, he rushes to prove the data is wrong. The second an creationist is presented with data from an evolutionist he as well rushes to prove said data wrong. No one person (including myself) has not done this during the thread. Is that science? Rushing to prove another wrong? NO IT IS NOT. Science is about data. Hard facts. Not emotional responses to data that forces it to fit their pre-concieved ideas. That is the point of this thread. I have tried this thread with three different wordings, and each time it has degenerated into a "This fact, vs that fact" not the point of the thread. You see, even if you think evolution is science, it is very clear that every person here, is not scientific about how they approach it. They are all biased to the point that real science can not be discussed.

Nope not at all. If you are an nonbeliever we just set your status as such. The reason is we have had to many nonbelievers who would interrupt other threads and hijack them to make there own points, and really causing trouble by this. We also have had many use the pm system to harass others in private. It is nothing personal, just protection. You would be referring to what used to be called the heard instinct right? To protect the herd? Well also its not the Golden Rule, that states to do unto others as you would have them do to you. Yet that is not accounted for by a simple heard instinct.

Sorry, I thought stargaze had said what Exaeus' said. So Exaeus, can you read that post and reply, as well as let me know if your a believer or not. as from all appearances you are not. I re-read your post, I saw how you stated "your god" so I figured that answered my question. I have therefore changed your status to that of "Nonbeliever" This restricts you to posting in the outer court, and does not allow you access to the board Private Messaging system.

Sorry, I thought stargaze had said what Exaeus' said. So Exaeus, can you read that post and reply, as well as let me know if your a believer or not. as from all appearances you are not.

Stargaze why don't you respond to this post Interesting you keep making things about individual morals that you assume Christians have or morals that you disagree with. However you seem to ignore the fact that we are speaking of why as an individual that you are offended when someone does something that hurts you.

I am closing this topic as it has now only been a target of spam.

Hey you never,Know, God is a God of restoration.

Jerry, There is a book I highly suggest you getting. Its called "If only he knew: What no women can resist Understanding your wife" by Gary Smally. http://www.amazon.com/If-Only-He-Knew-Resist/dp/0310214785 I have started reading it and it has been pulling my wife and I closer to each other and to God at the same time. I'll be praying for you I know what your going through is not easy.

Amen, this is why I no longer discuss this issue, I have my own opinion, but in general I figure that as long as I hold fast to Jesus I'll be okay.

First off welcome to worthy. Second are you a Christian And third off if a"savage" tribe has a moral code where does it come from? You state that you feel good when you do good in other words you have a conscience where does that come from? Why are you offended if some one cheats you or lies to you or steals from you? You see you prove the point. There is a universal moral law that every one feels and where does that come from?

LOL, I had to comment on this because it did make me smile. You're right you now, the life of a Christian has got to be one of the most difficult to lead. I mean the constant sacrifices that are made is staggering, the complete memorization of the Bible, the giving to the poor, the visiting the downtrodden to rebuild homes and lives after disasters etc. Going to church on Sunday, or well, usually every Sunday you know unless it's a big hunting day or whatever...you guys really give the world an example that's hard to follow. I live work and play with Christians around me, you probably don't have it that bad my friend. Hmm I don't know many if any Christians like that. Not of that is a requirement only the cross of Christ is. That's the difference only Christianity does not have us work our way in to heaven. The good works flow from a change in our lives.

By the way the above morals are morals that are above all the other morals that are brought up such as murder and rape. These are down to the individual person and every person on the planet does the same and feels the same way when cheated or wronged in some way.

From Mere Christianity, By C.S. Lewis. 1. The Law Of Human Nature Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"—"That's my seat, I was there first"—"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"— "Why should you shove in first?"—"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"—"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football. Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law—with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it. We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. As a body, he is subjected to gravitation and cannot disobey it; if you leave him unsupported in mid-air, he has no more choice about falling than a stone has. As an organism, he is subjected to various biological laws which he cannot disobey any more than an animal can. That is, he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses... <snip> ... But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong— in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else? It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table. Now if we are agreed about that, I go on to my next point, which is this. None of us are really keeping the Law of Nature. If there are any exceptions among you, I apologise to them. They had much better read some other work, for nothing I am going to say concerns them. And now, turning to the ordinary human beings who are left:

Also I posted this to help with that very issue awhile ago.

Also do not try to pit me against another mod.