Darwin's Theory is False

[The Devil Inside]

you forgot to tie in the satanic conspiracy that planted the dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith.

 

[Ophiolite]

Shhh! Nobody is meant to know about that, except for ........

 

[qwerty mob]

 

[phlogistician]

Yes, I'm afraid so. It looks like it is none other than Judas Iscariot the Son of Perdition:

2nd Thes 2:3-4

So the son of perdition is a man. A man is a human, or do you disagree?

No! When men die, they stay dead. What you are saying, is that a mortal man, can be reborn as the beast, and remains mortal? Sorry, I;m not buying that.

But they (beast and false prophet) are mortal sinners. So you are wrong.

I'm not wrong, because I didn't make definite statement on the matter Woody. Seems you are trying to falsify something I did't say, in an attempt to force your argument. That, is dishonest.

Yes I have, it is clear that the beast is the "son of perdition" and he is a man. He is called "the man of sin" how much plainer can it be?

You are flogging a dead horse here Woody. I said even if they were mortal, it doesn't make any difference, as they specifically have an eternity in the lake of fire and brimstone, whereas this is not stated for anybody else. You seem to be trying to prove something out of nothing here.

Your own point proves itself wrong. Where does the bible say sinners will be removed from the lake of fire and given a second chance? Reinstated as it were. You are grasping for straws and there aren't any.

There is a passage about someone leaving Hell to convince his kin to lead good lives. So people can leave Hell. Second chances for all, what second chance is needed Woody, after spending some time in Hell, I presume souls move onto Heaven, because after the Apocalypse, the earth isn't a place mortals can stay, is it?

Revelations 14:11 is the final coffin nail for your argument. It says:

And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Sounds to me that this is just a confirmation that the smoke rises for ever, because the lake of fire is eternal. It doesn't state that people are tormented for ever Woody.

Whoever worships the beast will be tormented forever, and they shall have no rest forever.

It doesn't state that Woody, you are making that up. Here's one I didn't make up;

Lamentations 3:31-32 (NIV):

31 For men are not cast off, by the Lord forever.
32 Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love

Please falsify this passage Woody. It's quite clear.

Your argument on hell is all washed up.

Not true Woody, you have made claim that the beast and false prophet are mortal, which I don't buy, and then extrapolated this incorrectly to mean that all mortals are punished similarly, but yo uoffer no support for that point. It's baseless assertion upon baseless assertion with you, augmented with vague and twisted scripture.

Here it is in the OT as well:

Dan 12:2

“ And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
”

Matthew 25:41,46

“ Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
”

OK, so you now have a contradiction to deal with Woody, if 'everlasting punishment' is Hell.

How do you reconcile this contradiction? Are you just going to ignore;

Lamentations 3:31-32 (NIV):

31 For men are not cast off, by the Lord forever.
32 Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love

because it is inconvenient?

Isn't it odd that an atheist is going to tell christians what to believe about our bible and about hell?

Why is that odd, Woody? You are blinded by belief and indoctrination.

Atheists don't even believe there is a God so why are we arguing about hell anyway?

Why not? You've got a contradiction in your holy books, Woody. Please explain why one passage is correct over aniother!

 

[Woody]

Pholg said,

There is a passage about someone leaving Hell to convince his kin to lead good lives.

Good luck finding it because it's not in the bible.

Perhaps you are confusing it with the passage about the rich man and Lazurus: Luke 16:27-31. But the rich man was not allowed to leave hell to witness to his brothers:

If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

and you say:

I said even if they were mortal, it doesn't make any difference, as they specifically have an eternity in the lake of fire and brimstone, whereas this is not stated for anybody else.

Versus what John says in 1st John 4:3:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,

So unbelievers are no better than the beast/antichrist.

after spending some time in Hell, I presume souls move onto Heaven, because after the Apocalypse, the earth isn't a place mortals can stay, is it?

There is no place found for them Rev 20:11,12:

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

You say:

Sounds to me that this is just a confirmation that the smoke rises for ever, because the lake of fire is eternal. It doesn't state that people are tormented for ever Woody.

Then how do you explain Rev 14:11?

and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image

You say it ends but it doesn't. In the lake of fire, their situation is the same as the beast's.

It doesn't state that Woody, you are making that up. Here's one I didn't make up;

Lamentations 3:31-32 (NIV):

31 For men are not cast off, by the Lord forever.
32 Though he brings grief, he will show compassion, so great is his unfailing love

Please falsify this passage Woody. It's quite clear.

It is quite clear that hell isn't mentioned in this passage. You have made a connection that doesn't exist in scripture. The burden of proof is on you to make the connection. Where in any of the scriptures does it say people get a second chance after they go to hell?

Not true Woody, you have made claim that the beast and false prophet are mortal

I just quoted the bible, that's all. The beast is a man according to the bible. Fuss at the author of the bible.

Why not? You've got a contradiction in your holy books, Woody. Please explain why one passage is correct over aniother!

I don't see a contradiction, and it doesn't give me heartburn.

 

[The Devil Inside]

Good luck finding it because it's not in the bible.

what about the traditional protestant belief that christ went to hell and then returned to witness to his disciples?

You say it ends but it doesn't. In the lake of fire, their situation is the same as the beast's.It is quite clear that hell isn't mentioned in this passage. You have made a connection that doesn't exist in scripture. The burden of proof is on you to make the connection. Where in any of the scriptures does it say people get a second chance after they go to hell?

oh, i get it now!! hey guys, ive figured it out!!!!!
WOODY is the only one allowed to pick and choose which scriptures are logically sound.....and to think we were all arguing with him!!

I just quoted the bible, that's all. The beast is a man according to the bible. Fuss at the author of the bible.
I don't see a contradiction, and it doesn't give me heartburn.

1. no, you quoted yourself.
2. yep he is.
3. no, cause deuteronomy restricts me from practicing necromancy. paul is dead.
4. you see no contradiction because obviously you cant read what anyone else writes unless it agrees with your fundamentalist mentality.

*dusts his hands on his pants*
seriously....why dont we just ignore this guy?

 

[SkinWalker]

Because proselytizing fanatics require the criticism and ridicule of reasoned minds. Yes ridicule. There are those that deserve it. Woody is one.

 

[Woody]

I clearly say to the West, you have a problem. You cannot comprehend how much the Muslims love Prophet Muhammad (SAWS). You are still unable to understand this point. If you had really encompassed its significance, you would never have accepted what happened.

I agree that the cartoon about Muhammad was not appropriate and should not have been published. It should fall under obscenity guidelines. Though I don't really see it as offensive from my own eyes, I respect your right to be spared something that is highly offensive in your eyes (and the eyes of millions of Muslims). I expect the same respect from you. That is how a civil society works -- with respect for the individual.

The problem is with our liberal-minded news media -- they are always pushing the edge of the envelope on freedom of speech. They have no respect for anyone, not even themselves. They destest the people that died to give them the right to have free speech. They bite the hand that feeds -- like the bad dogs they are.

 

[wesmorris]

I think if a cartoon offends you and you participate in violence due to your offence, you should be executed for the sake of the gene pool.

 

[Woody]

I think if a cartoon offends you and you participate in violence due to your offence, you should be executed for the sake of the gene pool.

The two events should be treated separately (cartoon publishing and violence). The cartoon should be dealt with at the publisher.

On the otherhand it's really stupid and irresponsible to go out and attack western culture because of something done by a newspaper. This is disgusting and cowardly behavior -- like using women and children as human shields to fight a war -- low and inexcusable -- the kind of thing a lowbreed criminal does.

 

[SkinWalker]

Poppycock. With that logic, cartoons that satire political positions, politicians and political parties would need to be "dealt with." Religion deserves public criticism just as much (if not more) than politics. Satire is a good tool to do it with.

The irony is, the very point the cartoons were trying to make was born out by the irrational reactions of the religious nutters. It is religion that is "obscene" in its desire to dominate societies and governments.

 

[wesmorris]

Skinny,

I don't think that's ironic. I think it merely demonstrates the relevancy of the satire.

Certainly it's viewed as blasphemous, and that's apparently motivation enough to burn the infidels.

Is co-existence really plausible?

Meh, sorry for the off-topic stuff. I'll shaddup.

 

[smallaxe0217]

It takes faith to believe in either Darwinism or Creationism.

The question is whether you will believe that life began out of nothing, or whether life began from a self-exisiting life force. Neither can be proved, either must be taken on faith.

Once both sides recognize the importance of faith to BOTH SIDES and once mutual respect is established, then a proper dialogue can be entered. That's my opinion, at any rate...

 

[qwerty mob]

It takes faith to believe in either Darwinism or Creationism.

The question is whether you will believe that life began out of nothing, or whether life began from a self-exisiting life force. Neither can be proved, either must be taken on faith.

Once both sides recognize the importance of faith to BOTH SIDES and once mutual respect is established, then a proper dialogue can be entered. That's my opinion, at any rate...

Sheer nonsense.

The Modern Synthesis (also referred to as Neo-Darwinism although little of Darwin's actual original theories remain) is based on actual, objective, imperical research, and is a theory which is accepted as "contingently-true" until a better theory fits the objective facts. That's how the Scientific Method works. Think that over.

I couldn't give less of a shit about anyone's beliefs, but I'll gladly correct demonstrably false notions of Evolutionary Biological Science.

 

[smallaxe0217]

Has there been any scientific replication of life being created from nothing?

 

[qwerty mob]

Life from nothing? Sure- Biblical stories...

 

[smallaxe0217]

I didn't think that anyone was going to call the Bible scientific, but I won't say no

But in terms of replication; has life been created from nothing by any scientist thus far?

 

[qwerty mob]

If you can be logical, now's the time.

I answered your question directly.

If your religion were objectively true, then it would qualify as scientific.

Guess what, Genius, it ain't.

...

Good day to you.

 

[qwerty mob]

Look, quit editing your fucking posts.

Life doesn't come from "nothing"- it comes from matter, energy, and time.

Natural elements and forces which Science investigates through imperical observation and experiment are sufficient to explain simple protein strands which can (1) replicate, (2) repair themselves, and (3) react to their environment.

 

[smallaxe0217]

Thanks for the compliment.

However, Bible stories aren't about life coming from nothing; they are about life coming from a self-existent life-force (which I choose to call God). Bible stories are about creation. If you do not believe that God exists, then you believe that life came from nothing/a random chance arrangement of molecules (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). To believe that is your right; but if something is SCIENTIFIC, then it must be able to be reproduced in a lab. Has life been created from something that wasn't at one point alive?