alphaparticle Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 DRS, one more time, I am uninterested in your opinions with regards to my salvation. It's also a violation of the ToS of the forum. But you're the one that started the thread? I don't understand why talking about salvation upsets you. Psalms 20:5 We will rejoice in thy salvation, and in the name of our God we will set up our banners: the LORD fulfil all thy petitions. DRS, I am not interested in *your* evaluation of my salvation. I have already spoken about that on this thread, and rather clearly in the OP. If that is lost on you, it isn't my concern. But you spoke to other people. I'm DRS81 coming to you with a question, "There's a difference in being convicted as a nonbeliever vs a believer. Do you know what that is?" Has this question been asked? If so I'm sorry dude. Why were you comfortable answering questions from other people and not me? I'm not interested DRS. If you are so keen on sharing why not create a thread about it? Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DRS81 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I'm not interested DRS. If you are so keen on sharing why not create a thread about it? Enjoy Have a good night man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 I'm not interested DRS. If you are so keen on sharing why not create a thread about it? Enjoy Have a good night man. I will. You too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 30, 2014 But the even further confusion, and more fundamental confusion, I have here is what any of this really has to do with my OP. Not much I don't think? Of course, Enoch, if you have something to say about this I will be sure to read. That's the way threads often go! (You could say, "The topic evolved.") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,138 Content Per Day: 4.62 Reputation: 27,819 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 30, 2014 Hey alpha God bless you brother,I do hope your'e having a great evening!Love ya kiddo!' I went back to your OP just to read it again and you really asked a simple question after explaining as best you could why you "tend" to believe what you do & why....I must say alpha,it was realyt nicely written & I think alot of people may have missed the fact that you are saying you are not fully persuaded either way but your knowledge in the sciences do play a very big part in alot of your preferences.. Anyway ,to answer your question I really have two answers-lol First,I say "yes" just because ,as in John 3:16.youm meet those requirements.....we all do,we are all" whosoevers"and God,by His own Word did not say "All those who believe except those that believe in evolution after my creation,so I do not believe it too be a Salvation issue......And my second answer,is"no"....I believe that once a person comes to a certain point in their relationship with God by the Power of the Holy Spirit they will have faith in the complete Word of God because by His Wisdom & Understanding revelation will be received and one will see differently & believing in both is contradicting the Scriptures because it is ALL the true Word of God.....to God be the Glory With love,in Christ-Kwik BTW,nebula....that was very funny!God bless you Sis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 nebula, this is true . I almost used that verb in my response, then decided against it haha. kwik thanks. As I mentioned to DRS, I seem to have a measure of peace about this topic for the time being, which I'm very thankful for. It's on my mind, but in the back of my mind rather than causing the assault it was a few weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsRational Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 150 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/09/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/01/1984 Share Posted January 30, 2014 It’s commonly espoused that evolution forms the foundation of all biology. However, when investigated, the reality is that only evolution theory itself is dependent upon knowledge of evolution theory. There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry. There is not a word in the English language strong enough to properly express how wrong you are. I've personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab, and charted their progress for pharmaceutical companies. I've also assisted in medical research that relies heavily on the theory of evolution. Next time you get a bacterial infection just tell your doctor you don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle, because evolution has nothing to do with medicine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 30, 2014 It’s commonly espoused that evolution forms the foundation of all biology. However, when investigated, the reality is that only evolution theory itself is dependent upon knowledge of evolution theory. There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry. There is not a word in the English language strong enough to properly express how wrong you are. I've personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab, and charted their progress for pharmaceutical companies. I've also assisted in medical research that relies heavily on the theory of evolution. Next time you get a bacterial infection just tell your doctor you don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle, because evolution has nothing to do with medicine. I was recently in the Hospital (ICU) with my 7 year old son who had a severe case of Pneumonia. I had a heart to heart with the Doctor in which we discussed @ length and in great detail my sons condition and the treatment options. After we were finished I asked him......"Do you believe in evolution?" He laughed out loud. My son fully recovered. PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's the Anecdotal, here's the meat....... Marc Kirschner Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. Member of the National Academy of Sciences "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Dr. Marc Kirschner: The Boston Globe, October 23, 2005 Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) 'Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.' Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005 So you were saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 30, 2014 There is not a word in the English language strong enough to properly express how wrong you are. I've personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab, and charted their progress for pharmaceutical companies. I've also assisted in medical research that relies heavily on the theory of evolution. Next time you get a bacterial infection just tell your doctor you don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle, because evolution has nothing to do with medicine. Has anyone recorded bacteria to mutate into something they would have to reclassify into a different classification Family from the parent colony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsRational Posted January 30, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 150 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/09/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/01/1984 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) It’s commonly espoused that evolution forms the foundation of all biology. However, when investigated, the reality is that only evolution theory itself is dependent upon knowledge of evolution theory. There is no practical technology or discovery which is necessarily dependent upon the truth of Common Ancestry. There is not a word in the English language strong enough to properly express how wrong you are. I've personally performed experiments evolving bacteria in a lab, and charted their progress for pharmaceutical companies. I've also assisted in medical research that relies heavily on the theory of evolution. Next time you get a bacterial infection just tell your doctor you don't need to follow the directions on your prescription bottle, because evolution has nothing to do with medicine. I was recently in the Hospital (ICU) with my 7 year old son who had a severe case of Pneumonia. I had a heart to heart with the Doctor in which we discussed @ length and in great detail my sons condition and the treatment options. After we were finished I asked him......"Do you believe in evolution?" He laughed out loud. My son fully recovered. PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's the Anecdotal, here's the meat....... Marc Kirschner Chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School. Member of the National Academy of Sciences "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." Dr. Marc Kirschner: The Boston Globe, October 23, 2005 Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) 'Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding bio-discoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.' Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005 So you were saying? Perhaps he laughed because it was such an absurd question. Seriously though, I don't believe this really happened. Otherwise you would be telling me that while your son lay gravely ill you took the time to ask a doctor about evolution. I really don't care about your quote mining and anecdotal "evidence". When you start posting peer reviewed data we can have a conversation. Unlike yourself I work in the field and have a masters degree in the subject. Others might humor you but I won't. Edited January 30, 2014 by MrsRational Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts