- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt seems you can't answer Bbarr's question. You have avoided it twice now. I'm not convinced that you didn't understand it, since rather than revelling in verbosity, Bbarr's posts were clear and concise.
Its not so much the language i was just never one for revelling in verbosity.
what is it about the context defining the interpretation of scripture that yet evades you? you are drawing broad generalisations and attributing values where none exist.
If you want to show that created does not actually mean created in the literal sense then be my ...[text shortened]... scripture, hopefully this is now clear, God knows i provided references illustrating the point.
I'll have a go at asking the same question. Just to watch you duck it again.
Case A) Clouds and Rain
Biblical account: goddunnit
Scientific account: meteorology
Robbie's verdict: accepts goddunnit via meteorology
Case B) Life on Earth
Biblical account: goddunnit
Scientific account: abiogenesis and evolution
Robbie's verdict: rejects the idea that goddunnit via abiogenesis and evolution
Question: why accept in A and reject in B?
Robbie's answer so far as I can tell is: waterfalls are pretty.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasstill no evidence, i am not the one who has made the assertion, its you people. No evidence, well there is a surprise!
Just his usual retorics, his method of avoid questions he cannot answer.
i can now safely assert, due to the lack of evidence to the contrary, that those who accept the teaching of evolution have denied the teaching of Christ, supplanted it with another resulting in a watering down of scripture, have made assertions for which they have no substantiating reasoning other than vague assertions to other cycles actually mentioned in scripture , have resorted to caustic accusations in view of their lack of evidence and all in all have shown themselves to be thoroughly scurrilous individuals.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobie...because creationism isn't science. It's religion. It doesn't have to be proven. Whenever you try you fail. Religion is based upon faith, doesn't even be the truth.
still no evidence, i am not the one who has made the assertion, its you people. No evidence, well there is a surprise!
i can now safely assert, due to the lack of evidence to the contrary, that those who accept the teaching of evolution have denied the teaching of Christ, supplanted it with another resulting in a watering down of scripture, hav ...[text shortened]... r lack of evidence and all in all have shown themselves to be thoroughly scurrilous individuals.
When you know enough about evolution, you will understand. Until then - well, it's your way.
10 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Lord Sharkno i have not avoided it and your parody is neither accurate nor helpful. he specifically asked me about interpretation, of which i gave a very clear answer, it depends upon the context. He then sought to try to establish a flaw in the logic, again for which there was no basis, for he attributed to me values that i do not have and drew conclusions from his, not my, interpretation. The whole basis of his argument is this, that there are cycles mentioned in scripture, the water cycle for example. i mentioned others, the nitrogen cycle, the ocean filtration system etc etc, for which God is responsible for initiating, is it not true of evolution.
It seems you can't answer Bbarr's question. You have avoided it twice now. I'm not convinced that you didn't understand it, since rather than revelling in verbosity, Bbarr's posts were clear and concise.
I'll have a go at asking the same question. Just to watch you duck it again.
Case A) Clouds and Rain
Biblical account: goddunnit
Scientific ac n A and reject in B?
Robbie's answer so far as I can tell is: waterfalls are pretty.
He has indirectly tried to assert that if these cycles exist, and were put in place by God, then why is it not the same for the evolutionary process, the answer for which i have now given many times is that there is no scriptural basis (there is no mention of evolution in scripture, in fact , quite the opposite, and there is no scientific basis for attributing an intelligent agency to the evolutionary process). The onus is now not on me to provide evidence for a belief which i do not hold, but for those who have made the assertion, evidence for which, they cannot produce, for it is non existent.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasi see , well you just keep telling yourself whatever you like Fabian, i shall be here, when you can find any evidence linking God to the evolutionary process let us know, for its an assertion that you have made in the past! An assertion for which there is no evidence.
...because creationism isn't science. It's religion. It doesn't have to be proven. Whenever you try you fail. Religion is based upon faith, doesn't even be the truth.
When you know enough about evolution, you will understand. Until then - well, it's your way.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is no link between god (religion) and evolution (science). And you know why? Because religion and science cannot mix. So there is no evidence that god playes with evolution. There is no wcientific evidence with any god whatsoever.
i see , well you just keep telling yourself whatever you like Fabian, i shall be here, when you can find any evidence linking God to the evolutionary process let us know, for its an assertion that you have made in the past! An assertion for which there is no evidence.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by FabianFnaswel thank-you Fabian, it took its time in coming, but it was worth the wait! Do you see that people? me and Fabian agree, there is no link between God (intelligent agency) and evolution (pseudo science).
There is no link between god (religion) and evolution (science). And you know why? Because religion and science cannot mix. So there is no evidence that god playes with evolution. There is no wcientific evidence with any god whatsoever.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieif you had read my post you would have seen. i don't have scriptural evidence of evolution because the scripture was written for morons that killed each other over peanuts. morons that mostly could only count as far as how many sheep they had. the scripture is intended to teach those morons the love and compassion and sacrifice of christ. he did not come from heaven to die in a not fun manner in order to teach man quantum physics or evolution. that we figured out by ourselves. what we didn't figure out was the love part, not even today. and i claim it would have been much worse if there was no jesus.
yawn, when you have any evidence for your assertions, other than your usual caustic diatribe you can let the forum know, unanswered speculative questions dont count as evidence. you know the thing, anything scriptural linking God to the evolutionary process, anything scientific linking God to the evolutionary process, any teaching of Christ linking god to the evolutionary process, anything will do Zapansy.
now of course in an honest debate i would have to point out how you went on the offensive instead of answering my questions. how you never give proofs yourselfs but ask them of others. how when you do give "proofs" and we dismantle them, you call us infidels and that only by accepting god can we understand you. or flat out ignore us.
but this isn't an honest debate. this is just me wasting my time because i am bored at work.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiehe phrased it a little differently.
wel thank-you Fabian, it took its time in coming, but it was worth the wait! Do you see that people? me and Fabian agree, there is no link between God (intelligent agency) and evolution (pseudo science).
not much difference. very subtle. few would notice it.
10 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzii don't have scriptural evidence of evolution
if you had read my post you would have seen. i don't have scriptural evidence of evolution because the scripture was written for morons that killed each other over peanuts. morons that mostly could only count as far as how many sheep they had. the scripture is intended to teach those morons the love and compassion and sacrifice of christ. he did not come fr ut this isn't an honest debate. this is just me wasting my time because i am bored at work.
thankyou Zapansy, i hope you did not cough up any blood while formulating this rather sad admission.
secondly i am proffering nothing in respect of an assertion that i have not made. Both the church of England and the Catholic church as Noobster has pointed out, accept the teaching of evolution and find that it is compatible with scripture, i like anyone else would like to know the basis of their reasoning, for as you and I and Fabians have accepted, there is NO SCRIPTURAL basis for doing so. As 'christians', what is there basis for doing so? i would really like to know.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou still don't get it, do you? Be open-minded and try to understand.
wel thank-you Fabian, it took its time in coming, but it was worth the wait! Do you see that people? me and Fabian agree, there is no link between God (intelligent agency) and evolution (pseudo science).
If you see god as science - then prove scientifically his existance!
If you don't understand evolution, why are you so eager to explain it?
When your hell freezes, then we agree. Until then I just hope you will learn something.
I asked you a question here, did you see it? I asked you: "If you see god as science - then prove scientifically his existance!". You cannot answer that, so you avoid the question. Your style, robbie retorics.
If it's your religion to see science and religion as the same thing, then please do. Becasue in the real world it is not.
10 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasagain you are attributing to me, through a lack of understanding values that i do not have and then you are drawing conclusions based on those values which you have erroneously formulated. God is not science, i do not believe that God is science, where has this idea come from? I did not state it.
You still don't get it, do you? Be open-minded and try to understand.
If you see god as science - then prove scientifically his existance!
If you don't understand evolution, why are you so eager to explain it?
When your hell freezes, then we agree. Until then I just hope you will learn something.
I asked you a question here, did you see it? I as cience and religion as the same thing, then please do. Becasue in the real world it is not.
this is my position, hopefully you shall undetsand its import.
(Romans 1:20) . . .For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship. . .
my position is simply this, that through an examination of the natural world, we can try to deduce certain qualities of the one who made these things, or put these processes in place. Is that so difficult to understand?
Lastly your assertion has nothing to do with why the church of England and Catholicism accept the teaching of evolution and find that it is compatible with scripture, has it? which is the main point of Noobsters post.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no i have not avoided it and your parody is neither accurate nor helpful.
That's three times now.
he specifically asked me about interpretation, of which i gave a very clear answer, it depends upon the context. He then sought to try to establish a flaw in the logic, again for which there was no basis, for he attributed to me values that i do not have and drew conclusions from his, not my, interpretation. The whole basis of his argument is this, that there are cycles mentioned in scripture, the water cycle for example. i mentioned others, the nitrogen cycle, the ocean filtration system etc etc, for which God is responsible for initiating, is it not true of evolution.
He has indirectly tried to assert that if these cycles exist, and were put in place by God, then why is it not the same for the evolutionary process, the answer for which i have now given many times is that there is no scriptural basis (there is no mention of evolution in scripture, in fact , quite the opposite, and there is no scientific basis for attributing an intelligent agency to the evolutionary process). The onus is now not on me to provide evidence for a belief which i do not hold, but for those who have made the assertion, evidence for which, they cannot produce, for it is non existent.
Your parody of bbarr's point is neither accurate nor helpful.
Look, you have not answered the question. To simply say 'it is the context' is not sufficient. You have been asked why you reject the literal interpretation in one case and not the other. It is a simple question, why not answer it?
Just to spell it out, what is required is your justification for precisely why the context in A supports a non literal interpretation whereas it does not in B.
If you cannot point to which contextual cues inform your different decisions in each case, then we can conclude that you just believe what suits you without scriptural or evidential basis.
10 Feb 10
Originally posted by Lord Sharkplease tell me what it is about the context of a scripture that supports either a literal or a figurative interpretation that you do not understand.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]no i have not avoided it and your parody is neither accurate nor helpful.
That's three times now.
he specifically asked me about interpretation, of which i gave a very clear answer, it depends upon the context. He then sought to try to establish a flaw in the logic, again for which there was no b ...[text shortened]... we can conclude that you just believe what suits you without scriptural or evidential basis.