one.opinion Posted April 13, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.13 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted April 13, 2019 20 minutes ago, Behold said: I hold none in "contempt" who value the art of science and scientific investigation and discovery. My apologies. What word would you use instead of “contempt” for those that accept the evolution for evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behold Posted April 13, 2019 Group: Mars Hill Followers: 7 Topic Count: 87 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,795 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 3 Joined: 07/30/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: That the universe came into being roughly 6000 years ago is also presented as truth. This is unfortunate for those that are misinformed that they must believe it in order to accept the saving grace of God. I dont know of any Christian, or Church Denomination, that teaches...."you must believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, if you want to be saved". I don't believe this, and i can state that no other Christian on this Forum, which is worldwide, has been taught, or believes that Salvation, Redemption, and the Blood Atonement, has anything to do with believing in or caring about the age of the earth. So, whomever is telling you this, or whomever you are reading, that is giving you this misinformation.... is not someone that is telling you the truth. And if you do find a church that states that believing that the "6000 yr creation" theological idea is required for you.. <>to be a born again believer <>... then you are dealing with a cult, or worse......probably worse. Edited April 13, 2019 by Behold 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behold Posted April 13, 2019 Group: Mars Hill Followers: 7 Topic Count: 87 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,795 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 3 Joined: 07/30/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 13, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, one.opinion said: My apologies. What word would you use instead of “contempt” for those that accept the evolution for evolution? "Curious". "Seekers" What is wrong with being interested in whatever you find interesting? So, its not the theoretical subject matter that is the issue... The issue is using these to try to prove the non-existance of God as "first Cause". The issue is taking these theories and telling 7 yr olds, in public school, that these theories are "truth". Thats wrong. Edited April 13, 2019 by Behold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted April 13, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.13 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted April 13, 2019 50 minutes ago, Behold said: What is wrong with being interested in whatever you find interesting? Nothing at all. I just find it curious that you clearly think evolution is nothing more than a scientific excuse to ignore the existence of God. You continue to make your point by adding sillyexamples like scientists attempting to find a “gay gene” (there is quite likely some biological basis, but no single gene). You clearly have very little regard for the work of professionals that have dedicated years of their lives to study of these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behold Posted April 14, 2019 Group: Mars Hill Followers: 7 Topic Count: 87 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,795 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 3 Joined: 07/30/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 14, 2019 (edited) On 4/13/2019 at 6:41 PM, one.opinion said: Nothing at all. I just find it curious that you clearly think evolution is nothing more than a scientific excuse to ignore the existence of God. You continue to make your point by adding sillyexamples like scientists attempting to find a “gay gene” (there is quite likely some biological basis, but no single gene). You clearly have very little regard for the work of professionals that have dedicated years of their lives to study of these things. You mean "the theory of Evolution"....... remember that its a theory. Edited April 15, 2019 by Behold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steward George Posted April 14, 2019 Group: Steward Followers: 110 Topic Count: 10,461 Topics Per Day: 1.26 Content Count: 27,742 Content Per Day: 3.34 Reputation: 15,387 Days Won: 126 Joined: 06/30/2001 Status: Online Birthday: 09/21/1971 Steward Share Posted April 14, 2019 6 hours ago, Behold said: So, im not going to respond to you anymore, as the mods here are continuing to let you insult me, or say whatever ......... while they refuse to post my responses. First of all, you need to report ... if you dont reportx, how can we know the offense. Secondly, the eeekenw is a bit slower for your posts to be approved. God bless, George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael37 Posted April 14, 2019 Group: Servant Followers: 21 Topic Count: 238 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 6,777 Content Per Day: 3.24 Reputation: 4,725 Days Won: 2 Joined: 07/05/2018 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/23/1954 Share Posted April 14, 2019 8 minutes ago, George said: Secondly, the eeekenw is a bit slower for your posts to be approved. eeekenw = weekend perhaps? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steward George Posted April 14, 2019 Group: Steward Followers: 110 Topic Count: 10,461 Topics Per Day: 1.26 Content Count: 27,742 Content Per Day: 3.34 Reputation: 15,387 Days Won: 126 Joined: 06/30/2001 Status: Online Birthday: 09/21/1971 Steward Share Posted April 14, 2019 12 minutes ago, Michael37 said: eeekenw = weekend perhaps? ? It was on my phone -- lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted April 24, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,026 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 964 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted April 24, 2019 On 4/13/2019 at 8:08 PM, Behold said: You mean "the theory of Evolution"....... remember that its a theory. Perhaps you don't know what "theory" means. Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/ And evolution isn't a theory. It's a natural phenomenon, which we directly observe happening. There is a theory of evolution that explains it. There are agents of evolution like natural selection, and there are consequences of evolution, like increased fitness in a population, and common descent. So many people get these all confused. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behold Posted April 24, 2019 Group: Mars Hill Followers: 7 Topic Count: 87 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 3,795 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 6 Days Won: 3 Joined: 07/30/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted April 24, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Perhaps you don't know what "theory" means. Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/ And evolution isn't a theory. It's a natural phenomenon, which we directly observe happening. There is a theory of evolution that explains it. There are agents of evolution like natural selection, and there are consequences of evolution, like increased fitness in a population, and common descent. So many people get these all confused. Science uses a few theories to try to prove that God didn't create what they say evolved, later. Every Atheist uses theories supplied by science to deny the reality of Creation as it literally began. People who are devoted-obsessed with scientific theories, can not comprehend that you can't have original creation, without a Creator, and this includes how the universe began, how man began, etc, etc...... And regarding the evolution of man, this is not proven, its a theory. Its a theory that bases much of its (proof) idea on a "connecting fossil record", and in fact, there is no connecting fossil record....there are only adherents to the theory of evolution, that will lie and say......"yes, we believe it, we have some old bones, we have connected the dots, that we can't prove, and now, we have a theory that some will buy who aren't really paying attention". Edited April 24, 2019 by Behold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts