With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

[David F.]

And you have not answered a single one of mine. Up until now all you have done is quote my entire post and then ignore it all. C'mon, surely it's a little give and a little take? Frankly, you do not have the decency, manners or maturity to be engaged in a debate of this nature- as is shown by your one true consistency of ignoring everything in preference of just spouting your non-stop church propoganda, that isn't based upon any understanding whatsoever, but simple incompetence and ignorance.

I realise you have absolutely nothing of worth to say, and cannot debate the points I have raised, or indeed answer the questions I have posed, but then why waste my time? Why do I even bother asking when I already know you'll just ignore it so you can waffle some inane garbage for the next millennium?

When you want a debate, and are willing to conduct the debate in a manner that is appropriate, call me.

For the final time:



Although answering a question to your satisfaction seems to be impossible, it would be made a lot easier for me to do if you'd pay attention to my fucking posts. Undoubtedly you'll now just cry over my use of a rude word, but I find it's usually a worthwhile method to use with people who cannot comprehend things of such simplicity. Further to which, it is quite hard to grasp exactly what you have problem with considering you just lumped my entire post into one big quote and then started up with your typical banter.



The history of dogs is evolution, which you'd know if you knew anything about evolution - which you clearly do not. And I'm not trying to frame evolution as anything. I've asked you six fucking times what you would consider sufficient evidence of a transitional/new phylum etc, all to no avail and have merely explained to you 5 times that how it all began is not what evolution is about. The fact that you are blind or insanely incompetent is not my problem.



As you are clearly able to state such a thing, you must have calculated the odds concerning my example. Would you kindly provide them please? Guess this will be ignored aswell.



Here you go again with your boring little insults towards evolutionists, without even realising that how it all began is not evolution. The sooner you start paying attention to my posts, the sooner we can progress.



Yes lets. And the science known as evolution is not about who started it all, be that god or random fluke happening.



I didn't ask you to believe anything, I merely provided a possible explanation that you can accept, deny, stick up your bum or throw out the window. I don't honestly care. What would be nice is if you'd take the time to read my posts and respond to them in proper manner - while paying attention to any return questions that I might ask.

How's our history challenge coming along btw?



As I've now explained 50,000 times - I never ask theists to prove anything. If you opened your eyes once in a while, you'd already know that.



You're bizarrely amusing, and I personally consider YOU proof that we couldn't have been designed and that it must have been pure luck, (or bad luck).



Luck of the draw I guess. How many more times do I need to say it before your ears start working?

I'ts not so fun when someone does this to you is it?

I'm sorry, I've been playing with you a little. I've put you in an impossible position and then pushed a little harder... just as you atheists seem to like to do to theists. The truth is, there is no proof. Evolution is much like any other religion, it is unprovable. The numbers are so off-the-scale it gets amusing watching even very smart scientists in the field doubting themselves. I sometimes like to pin scientists down on Evolution and let them squirm a bit - it's not always nice, but sometimes its instructive. Don't feel bad, you're not the first - or the last.

I do understand your answer. When you say "Luck of the Draw" it is exactly the same as when a Christian says "I have Faith". You might show a little compasion next time a Christian has to resort to this answer.

You can respond to this if you like, but I'm going to let you off the hook at this point. Be well.

 

[Poor Player]

You can respond to this if you like, but I'm going to let you off the hook at this point. Be well.

Maybe so David, but I'm not letting YOU off that easy. You said these were the two major points of you own arguement against evolution, and I quote:

"1. How can DNA form initially - this is the heart of Evolution and without it Evolution is dead. You are asking us to believe in luck? Try again. This is like hitting the lottery every time, not once, not twice but trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions... of times in a row - without even one miss. Surely you can do better than that. We have no evidence that there are any other planets where life tried to start, but even if there were, that has absoultely nothing to do with life starting by chance on Earth. Do you understand anything about statistics. Other events have nothing to do with this event.

2. I asked you to show a change in Phylum, Class or Order. I did not ask you to show that a slug became a man. I asked you to show any transitional forms beteen Phylums. Evolutionists are funny people. They will glom onto anything which even remotely looks like a transitional form - like a platupus, since it has webbed feet and a bill it must be a transitional form between otters and ducks, right - WRONG. If there truely were transitional forms, there should be MILLIONS of steps between Phylums, yet there are NONE!!!

Your suppositions here are both fatally flawed. They use very faulty logic and I will now prove it to you and whoever is listening in. I already addressed #1 on the last page but I will do it again here. In order to disprove the beginning of evolution by chance you have assumed that DNA was necessary to form the earliest life forms. This is not necessarily the case. We have no DNA or DNA-like samples to examine from a billion years ago now do we, because it all decayed long before even the dinosaurs. We just don't know how it all started yet and neither do you. It is very early in the dance. How long has the internet been around?

In premise #2 you have assumed that there aren't enough "transitional" forms between phylums. Define "transition". Until you can state what the evolutionary requirements are for a "transition" then you can't even define it let alone determine how many steps are required. So what are the requirements for a transition then? Give me the simplest one you can possibly think of. You can't do it. Until we actually OBSERVE it happening, then we won't really know for sure now will we. One can claim that a fossil "looks" transitory, but until a transition is actually observed then it is speculative. Observation is the essence of science is it not? Observation of testable theories that is. We theorize, we test, we observe, and we disprove. Until you can thoroughly and consistently disprove a testable theory then it could still be true now couldn't it?

But how long has it been since evolution was discovered? A few nanoseconds ago in geologic time. We may not have these answers for hundreds or thousands of years, or we may have them tommorrow. Your problem is that neither one of your assumptions is even testable yet. It's just like your wife saying "prove to me you love me and then I will believe you that you do". You cannot successfully argue against evolution using illogical and fatally flawed arguements. You have disproved nothing.

So now David, both of your logical arguements have been discredited. Furthermore you err greatly when you claim that evolution is a religion. You have overlooked the single most important distinction between religion and science: the processes used to gather evidence. Scientific theories must be testable to be truly scientific. Religious theories have no similar requirement. The religious man takes his completely untestable theories and looks for supporting evidence anywhere he can. Fine, we all do this, but it is not practicing science. It is merely human nature and wishful thinking.

The requirements of practicing science are that your theory be testable. The rigorously scientific man then does everything he can to disprove his theory. If he doesn't try that then his peers in the scientific community will. This insures that science does not become religion. The most important difference between evolution and religion is again, simply, the process by which the evidence is accumulated. No hard evidence can be collected to prove or disprove religion because it is simply not testable. Scientific evidence, on the other hand must be tested, then proved, disproved, or deemed a work in progress.

Is evolution testable? Of course it is. We test it all the time. Can we prove it? Of course we can, but not tommorrow. It is going to take time. We see the evidence of it everywhere but we have not yet actually observed it happening before our eyes in a controlled setting. Science hasn't been around long enough yet. When was DNA discovered (1950s)? Science didn't exist ten thousand years ago now did it? If it had, the case would be now closed. Ancient religion is at best a collection of untestable beliefs. Evolution is at worst a testable work in process. Only science can give us the real answers. Only science gives us a process for finding the truth.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Unless he has just so happened to pre-plan you to a life of abject suffering. Or unless he's in a bad mood and strikes you to death with a lightning bolt because you're naughty.

Jesus fulfilled the prophecies written about Him in that He led a life of great suffering even unto death by crucifixion. He did not curse God for His lot but rather held God up and praised Him for His wisdom. Jesus' life is a stumbling block for you because you do not seek God.
You say "God made evil happen"
Jesus Says "Father ... Deliver us from Evil"
Do you not see that there is an enemy of man and that their is a Saviour?

If you had two sons and one wanted to kill the other because he was jealous of him for some reason, would you turn to the persecuted son and say "Because my other son is acting in this way, I too am evil" and agree with the son who wishes to exercise his rage? or would you say to that persecuted son "Our brother is jealous. Do not fear! I will let nothing happen to you. I will rebuke our jealous brother and he will see that my love is for you both and we will be united once again"

 

[SnakeLord]

Truthseeker:

How many trillions of trillions of years would that take?

I won the lottery the very first week it started in my country. I haven't won it since. Giving an accurate timescale with which it would take, doesn't work.

Further to which, David keeps assuming it would need to form human DNA from scratch, which is fallacious. I told him instead to go to the very basics, but of course the best that can be achieved right now are modern day basics - which in no way shows that basic life would have been identical billions of years ago. So here he is trying to envision millions upon millions of dna chains which is mere guesswork, and then with all the ignorance in the world, thinks that's evolution out the window.

Perhaps the very basic life found in a rock from mars took trillions upon trillions of years aswell, or perhaps god did it with the click of his fingers.

Mr.Mouth:

I'ts not so fun when someone does this to you is it?

Does what? Ignores every question asked, offers no alternatives, and in actuality ignores the entire post completely merely so he can continue on his path of irrelevancy and ignorance without paying any attention to anyone but his own mouth?

And then, as if that isn't rude enough, dares to try and pass it round to me. I answer every question people ask, even if it's hard to do so, and never ignore a post that is directed towards me. That is why my posts are generally rather long in size.

I'm sorry, I've been playing with you a little. I've put you in an impossible position and then pushed a little harder...

You haven't put anyone in an impossible position, stop being so naive. You are making harder by completely ignoring every question and every comment, but that's not a position you're putting me into, just a position you're putting yourself into. You've closed your eyes and opened your mouth - nothing more. You don't want to hear anyone other than yourself, and as this is clearly the case, I wonder why you bothered in the first place. Might aswell just sit in an empty room and talk to the walls.

Now you're trying to make light of your own inadequacies.

The truth is, there is no proof.

I never said there was.

Evolution is much like any other religion, it is unprovable.

What do you mean? Oh, yet again you think how it all started is evolution.

The numbers are so off-the-scale it gets amusing watching even very smart scientists in the field doubting themselves. I sometimes like to pin scientists down on Evolution and let them squirm a bit - it's not always nice, but sometimes its instructive. Don't feel bad, you're not the first - or the last.

Get it straight. You haven't made anyone squirm, you haven't shown anything that has any substance, and you merely think you're in a position to state otherwise because you're blind to the responses. As for 'feeling bad', I actually feel fine in the knowledge that anyone who reads this thread will be able to see just how you have failed in every single instance to answer so much as one question posed, or indeed to pay any attention whatsoever to any return post made to you. You've ignored everything I've said, ignored poor player, etc in preference of just working your own mouth. If this is what you need to do to feel people actually agree with you, then I hope you enjoy it, but it is a tragic waste of a brain. The very best you could manage was to say that man only differs 10% to a slug, but after asking you to support this, you ran away as per usual.

Simply put David, you're a coward.

I do understand your answer. When you say "Luck of the Draw" it is exactly the same as when a Christian says "I have Faith".

Actually there's a vast difference, but I wont explain it to you, because you're obviously not listening.

You might show a little compasion next time a Christian has to resort to this answer.

Well, I didn't have to resort to that answer, but you're not awake and so missed every other opportunity you had to progress from our original position. Maybe if you weren't the true coward that you are, we would have got a lot further.

You can respond to this if you like, but I'm going to let you off the hook at this point. Be well.

Let me off the hook? Lol, while it's always good to end with an amusing comment, this isn't as amusing as it is stupid. You're a coward, be ashamed. Or better than that, be a man for once and pay attention to the posts that have been made. Answer the questions that have been asked, and respond to each point individually.


C20:

Jesus fulfilled the prophecies written about Him in that He led a life of great suffering even unto death by crucifixion.

Fulfilled what prophecies?

He did not curse God for His lot but rather held God up and praised Him for His wisdom.

Well, he was a religious jew. The same is true of pretty much any religious person, and more so in a time when all they had was religion.

Jesus' life is a stumbling block for you because you do not seek God.

I did seek god. I looked under the bed, in the closet, hell I even bought a telescope and looked into space. He must be invisible or something.. And jesus supposed life isn't a stumbling block, it's just irrelevant.

You say "God made evil happen"

No I didn't.

Jesus Says "Father ... Deliver us from Evil"

If a human talks to himself, he's considered mad, why is it different for god?

Do you not see that there is an enemy of man and that their is a Saviour?

Can't say I do. Who's this enemy of man? And what's the saviour saving?

If you had two sons and one wanted to kill the other because he was jealous of him for some reason, would you turn to the persecuted son and say "Because my other son is acting in this way, I too am evil" and agree with the son who wishes to exercise his rage? or would you say to that persecuted son "Our brother is jealous. Do not fear! I will let nothing happen to you. I will rebuke our jealous brother and he will see that my love is for you both and we will be united once again"

Not sure what I'd do, my son died so I'm not in a position to witness such a thing. God on the other hand did witness such a thing, (Cain and Abel), and instead of saying "Fear not, I will let nothing happen to you", he let Cain go and beat his brother to death. So much for your love and unity. He didn't even come down in a dream and warn Abel, instead just let Cain get on with it and kill him.

So I can only conclude that if I was in such a position, and thought about what god would do in the circumstance, then I'd let one son kill the other.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Truthseeker:

I won the lottery the very first week it started in my country. I haven't won it since. Giving an accurate timescale with which it would take, doesn't work.

Further to which, David keeps assuming it would need to form human DNA from scratch, which is fallacious. I told him instead to go to the very basics, but of course the best that can be achieved right now are modern day basics - which in no way shows that basic life would have been identical billions of years ago. So here he is trying to envision millions upon millions of dna chains which is mere guesswork, and then with all the ignorance in the world, thinks that's evolution out the window.

Perhaps the very basic life found in a rock from mars took trillions upon trillions of years aswell, or perhaps god did it with the click of his fingers.

Mr.Mouth:

Does what? Ignores every question asked, offers no alternatives, and in actuality ignores the entire post completely merely so he can continue on his path of irrelevancy and ignorance without paying any attention to anyone but his own mouth?

And then, as if that isn't rude enough, dares to try and pass it round to me. I answer every question people ask, even if it's hard to do so, and never ignore a post that is directed towards me. That is why my posts are generally rather long in size.



You haven't put anyone in an impossible position, stop being so naive. You are making harder by completely ignoring every question and every comment, but that's not a position you're putting me into, just a position you're putting yourself into. You've closed your eyes and opened your mouth - nothing more. You don't want to hear anyone other than yourself, and as this is clearly the case, I wonder why you bothered in the first place. Might aswell just sit in an empty room and talk to the walls.

Now you're trying to make light of your own inadequacies.



I never said there was.



What do you mean? Oh, yet again you think how it all started is evolution.



Get it straight. You haven't made anyone squirm, you haven't shown anything that has any substance, and you merely think you're in a position to state otherwise because you're blind to the responses. As for 'feeling bad', I actually feel fine in the knowledge that anyone who reads this thread will be able to see just how you have failed in every single instance to answer so much as one question posed, or indeed to pay any attention whatsoever to any return post made to you. You've ignored everything I've said, ignored poor player, etc in preference of just working your own mouth. If this is what you need to do to feel people actually agree with you, then I hope you enjoy it, but it is a tragic waste of a brain. The very best you could manage was to say that man only differs 10% to a slug, but after asking you to support this, you ran away as per usual.

Simply put David, you're a coward.



Actually there's a vast difference, but I wont explain it to you, because you're obviously not listening.



Well, I didn't have to resort to that answer, but you're not awake and so missed every other opportunity you had to progress from our original position. Maybe if you weren't the true coward that you are, we would have got a lot further.



Let me off the hook? Lol, while it's always good to end with an amusing comment, this isn't as amusing as it is stupid. You're a coward, be ashamed. Or better than that, be a man for once and pay attention to the posts that have been made. Answer the questions that have been asked, and respond to each point individually.


C20:

Fulfilled what prophecies?



Well, he was a religious jew. The same is true of pretty much any religious person, and more so in a time when all they had was religion.



I did seek god. I looked under the bed, in the closet, hell I even bought a telescope and looked into space. He must be invisible or something.. And jesus supposed life isn't a stumbling block, it's just irrelevant.



No I didn't.



If a human talks to himself, he's considered mad, why is it different for god?



Can't say I do. Who's this enemy of man? And what's the saviour saving?



Not sure what I'd do, my son died so I'm not in a position to witness such a thing. God on the other hand did witness such a thing, (Cain and Abel), and instead of saying "Fear not, I will let nothing happen to you", he let Cain go and beat his brother to death. So much for your love and unity. He didn't even come down in a dream and warn Abel, instead just let Cain get on with it and kill him.

So I can only conclude that if I was in such a position, and thought about what god would do in the circumstance, then I'd let one son kill the other.

Hi,

Firstly I am sorry to hear of the loss of your son. I too have lost a daughter but that is another matter.
You say upon conclusion that you would let one son kill the other given what you see as the 'example God set'. But in truth what could you do if the jealous son wanted to kill the other? Trust me God was warning Cain before he commited murder. A man's conscious should be enough! God said to Cain something along the lines of "If you had done what was right you would be smiling now!" which would suggest that Cain had had a choice all along the line. We know that much to be true because even the stupidest among us understand free will.


peace

c20

 

[SnakeLord]

But in truth what could you do if the jealous son wanted to kill the other?

If I was god? I'm sure there's many things I could do. Firstly I could have refrained from busting Cain's ass for giving me fruit instead of my much needed slaughtered sheep, which would have stopped him from killing Abel.

Trust me God was warning Cain before he commited murder

Yeah, about how bad it was to offer fruit.

A man's conscious should be enough!

And if a man's conscience isn't enough, who's to blame? The man who has no say over his conscience, or the being that created his conscience?

God said to Cain something along the lines of "If you had done what was right you would be smiling now!" which would suggest that Cain had had a choice all along the line.

God was reprimanding Cain for offering fruit, because fruit is evil. We all know that, but Cain obviously didn't.

 

[§outh§tar]

We know that much to be true because even the stupidest among us understand free will.

One look at an autistic or mentally 'defective' person (perhaps even a psychopath) will tell you this is a stupidly baseless statement.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Truthseeker:

I won the lottery the very first week it started in my country. I haven't won it since. Giving an accurate timescale with which it would take, doesn't work.

Further to which, David keeps assuming it would need to form human DNA from scratch, which is fallacious. I told him instead to go to the very basics, but of course the best that can be achieved right now are modern day basics - which in no way shows that basic life would have been identical billions of years ago. So here he is trying to envision millions upon millions of dna chains which is mere guesswork, and then with all the ignorance in the world, thinks that's evolution out the window.

Perhaps the very basic life found in a rock from mars took trillions upon trillions of years aswell, or perhaps god did it with the click of his fingers.

Ok. I understand your position. Doesn't mean it's right, tough...

 

[c20H25N3o]

If I was god? I'm sure there's many things I could do. Firstly I could have refrained from busting Cain's ass for giving me fruit instead of my much needed slaughtered sheep, which would have stopped him from killing Abel.



Yeah, about how bad it was to offer fruit.



And if a man's conscience isn't enough, who's to blame? The man who has no say over his conscience, or the being that created his conscience?



God was reprimanding Cain for offering fruit, because fruit is evil. We all know that, but Cain obviously didn't.

Snakelord, if God were to reprimand Cain because He had offered fruit instead of a charred meat I would say to God "Come on, how could you be so ungrateful!"
However this was not what God was rebuking Cain over. God is a good father who wants the best for us. He wants us to have the same attitudes as Him. He wants us to have 'the best'. How could Cain possibly adopt this attitude when from the outset he was prepared only to give of his worst - as I have said before it was not what Cain gave but rather the spirit he gave it in. Cain did not want the best for others you see and his actions proved this when he killed Abel. God rebuked Cain "If you had done what was right you would be smiling now" - Does that not sound like a gentle father's rebuke? Does God condemn Cain eternally or does He give Cain an opportunity to repent? Cain (of course) has every opportunity to say "I am sorry, I do not know why I have done this. I understand not what it is I do. I love to do what I hate and I hate to do what I love - who will rescue me from this body of death?"
God is very much alive today waiting for his chosen to turn to Him. God tells you that there is no punishment, no condemnation for those that believe in His Son Jesus because His Son Jesus has paid the price for your sin. The requirements of the law have been fulfilled and death has no power over you as a result. Death can only keep the sinner because the sinner is not allowed to live forever because the sinner would quite frankly ruin Heaven. Your sin has been put to death on the cross. Your new life awaits you in Christ through the resurection of Jesus. This is a message of love. Nothing else.

peace

c20

 

[SnakeLord]

Snakelord, if God were to reprimand Cain because He had offered fruit instead of a charred meat I would say to God "Come on, how could you be so ungrateful!"

'Time passed and Cain brough some of the produce of the soil as an offering for yahweh, while Abel brought the first-born of his flock and some of their fat as well. yahweh looked with favour on Abel and his offering. But he did not look with favour on Cain and his offering, and Cain was very angry and downcast.'

At this point god has a go at Cain, calling him a sinner etc. We can see that the entire problem comes from Cain offering fruit, which god does not appreciate or want.

We see similar stories in older Sumerian culture, where the gods demanded meat/burning meat but seemed to have a distinct problem with 'soil produce', which I label as "fruit" merely for ease.

However this was not what God was rebuking Cain over.

Can you show this to be the case? The bible most certainly doesn't show anything else to assume Cain was bad or a sinner before god decided to have a go at him for offering fruit.

God is a good father who wants the best for us

But this is completely contradictory to how life is. No child even gets past it's first year without suffering from some severe and life threatening problems, as I highlighted in more detail on the other thread. Of course, in modern day times less children die as a result, but you can't claim it's because of god's love, when it's actually because of medical advances.

He wants us to have the same attitudes as Him.

Jealousy, anger, wrath etc? These are distinct parts of the biblical god, so are you saying he wants us to have these aswell? Or perhaps the attitude whereby if someone annoys you enough, you can happily kill them? Why ignore those parts? Are you even aware that your god killed every living thing on the planet because he was unhappy? women, children, animals... And now you somehow expect it should be different for Cain?

How could Cain possibly adopt this attitude when from the outset he was prepared only to give of his worst - as I have said before it was not what Cain gave but rather the spirit he gave it in.

Unfortunately you still haven't managed to show that this was the case. There is no statement saying Cain gave his offering in a different 'spirit', or that from the outset he was only willing to give his worst. You're making this part up out of thin air, and as such it has no merit.

God rebuked Cain "If you had done what was right you would be smiling now" - Does that not sound like a gentle father's rebuke?

Well that's not what he says, and no - it doesn't sound like a gentle father. A gentle father wouldn't have got so irate over a basket of fruit.

Does God condemn Cain eternally or does He give Cain an opportunity to repent?

Actually he condemns him. "Now be cursed and banned from the ground that has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood at your hands... A restless wanderer you will be on earth."

I have heard that a curse from a human witch can be somewhat severe, imagine just how much worse a curse from god would be.

God is very much alive today waiting for his chosen to turn to Him.

If so, where did he go? I mean, judging from the bible, god was overly present in society. From sitting on mountains to walking around through their camps. Where is he now? No booming voices from the sky, no demands about what's his, no demands concerning sacrifices, no longer striking down evil people, or those he dislikes.

Frankly he's made himself harder to find than Osama Bin Laden has. We must consider that spmeone trying so hard to hide, doesn't actually want to be found.

Even those who claim to have found him have no level of certainty, instead saying they merely have faith he exists. It would stand to reason that if you had indeed found him, the word faith would never be used.

God tells you that there is no punishment, no condemnation for those that believe in His Son Jesus because His Son Jesus has paid the price for your sin.

What a luxury it must be to be guilt free. To be innocent of everything before you've even done it. Personally I prefer taking responsibility for my own actions as opposed to finding some long dead scapegoat to pile them all onto.

The requirements of the law have been fulfilled and death has no power over you as a result.

Death takes everyone. That's a fact.

Death can only keep the sinner because the sinner is not allowed to live forever because the sinner would quite frankly ruin Heaven.

But the sinner would live forever also no? But instead of in a golden city, he'd be downstairs in a lake of fire. And why would they ruin heaven, you think sinners can't play harps?

Your sin has been put to death on the cross.

Not at all, my sin is still very much alive. Unlike typical cowards however, I am willing to take responsibility for my actions.

Your new life awaits you in Christ through the resurection of Jesus.

New life? No offence but this one is fully sufficient. Sure, there are things I'll never get to find out, because there isn't enough time - but I consider that more appealing than getting to know everything 60,000,000,000,000 times over because life never ends. Ever. That would be the absolute pinnacle of boredom.

This is a message of love. Nothing else.

Why feel that's your responsibility? Do you think there is no love in anything other than what you have to say? Do you think those who are not religious have no love?

peace

The religious man is always the first to say "peace", and the last to show "peace".

 

[fadeaway humper]

SnakeLord has revealed the cause of Cain's fall from grace: this god character is a rabid Atkins dieter.

 

[§outh§tar]

Frankly he's made himself harder to find than Osama Bin Laden has. We must consider that spmeone trying so hard to hide, doesn't actually want to be found.

Hide and seek with an invisible but omnipresent God!

 

[SnakeLord]

Thanks for including my typo in your quote

C20:

Snakelord, if God were to reprimand Cain because He had offered fruit instead of a charred meat I would say to God "Come on, how could you be so ungrateful!"

So stop being a coward and say it already. It might seem like fortune telling, but I can guarantee you, you wont get a heavenly response - nor will you get struck down with lightning. Aside from some planets, meteorites etc, space is empty.

And this isn't even a 'big' issue. There's loads worse; such as the annihilation of every living thing on the planet because he was having a bad day.

And let's not forget: your only manageable defence was in making stuff up that isn't even in the bible. We can all make up non-existant text to make things look better for our own views, but the fact remains that if isn't there, it isn't there.

 

[TruthSeeker]

God "reprimand" Cain because of Cain's intentions, not actions.
And He didn't repress them, He simply pointed them out.

 

[SnakeLord]

God "reprimand" Cain because of Cain's intentions, not actions.
And He didn't repress them, He simply pointed them out.

Where does it show any of this? The reprimand came for the offering as clearly shown in the bible.

'yahweh looked with favour upon abel and his offering. But he did not look with favour on cain and his offering.'

The issue, and relevance is about the offering, not any possible future intentions, any supposed spirits or anything else of that sort. The text shows god was unhappy with fruit.. Anything beyond that is mere make believe.

 

[§outh§tar]

God "reprimand" Cain because of Cain's intentions, not actions.
And He didn't repress them, He simply pointed them out.

I challenge you to provide any contextual evidence of this. Failure to do so means you are a liar and base your interpretations on mere speculations, fair nuff?

 

[Poor Player]

SnakeLord, I just received this very informative response to the "Evolution is Dead Logic" logic posted by your debate opponent earlier in this thread. It came from the National Center For Science Education at www.ncseweb.org. If you want a personal contact there I will give it.

Your general approach looks good, a few details you could add:

1. "Origin of millions of base pairs of DNA in an amoba by chance." It
didn't happen all at once. The process was something like:

RNA replicators
RNA+lipid bubble replicators
RNA+lipid+protein replicators
DNA takes over information storage function, RNA mediates between DNA and
proteins
[many more steps]
primitive prokaryotes (bacteria)
[many more steps plus endosymbiotic merging of bacteria to form a larger cell]
early eukaryote
[many branching events]
amoeba and similar "higher" life forms like animals

See these articles by Cavalier-Smith if you are dying for details:

Obcells as proto-organisms: membrane heredity, lithophosphorylation, and
the origins of the genetic code, the first cells, and photosynthesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11675615

The neomuran origin of archaebacteria, the negibacterial root of the
universal tree and bacterial megaclassification.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11837318

The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of
Protozoa.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11931142

Origins of the machinery of recombination and sex.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11932771


2. Transitional forms

* You should include some examples. At the level of the Linnaean class,
there are transitional forms between fish and amphibians, between
amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds, and between reptiles
and mammals. See:

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Common descent FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates


Even at the level of phyla, some transitional fossils have been found even
though many of the ancestral animals were probably soft-bodied and only a
few millimeters long.

See:
Phylum level evolution
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambevol.htm or
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/morton/cambevol.html

The Precambrian to Cambrian Fossil Record and Transitional Forms
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html

There are various complexities, e.g. the definitions of "phylum" and
"class" are rather arbitrary, and many scientists think that we should
scrap Linnean taxonomy altogether and go with a pure cladistic system. But
that is a whole different topic...

 

[David F.]

Where does it show any of this? The reprimand came for the offering as clearly shown in the bible.

'yahweh looked with favour upon abel and his offering. But he did not look with favour on cain and his offering.'

The issue, and relevance is about the offering, not any possible future intentions, any supposed spirits or anything else of that sort. The text shows god was unhappy with fruit.. Anything beyond that is mere make believe.

Almost right. It wasn't that God was unhappy with fruit but rather that God was happy with fat (blood). Life is in the blood. Sacrifices are only acceptable if they are of life/blood. More than that, the sacrifice must be unblemished (no second-hand, sickly lambs/goats/ox/rams). Thus, Jesus had to give His own life/blood to be acceptable to God. Jesus was the only unblemished man.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Where does it show any of this? The reprimand came for the offering as clearly shown in the bible.

'yahweh looked with favour upon abel and his offering. But he did not look with favour on cain and his offering.'

That's not a reprimand. It is just showing that God likes Abel's attitude better then Cain's.

"favour

n 1: a feeling of favorable regard [syn: favor] 2: an inclination to approve; "that style is in favor this season" [syn: favor] 3: an advantage to the benefit of someone or something; "the outcome was in his favor" [syn: favor] 4: souvenir consisting of a small gift given to a guest at a party [syn: party favor, party favour, favor] 5: an act of gracious kindness [syn: favor] v 1: treat gently or carefully [syn: favor] 2: bestow a privilege upon [syn: privilege, favor] 3: promote over another; "he favors his second daughter" [syn: prefer, favor] 4: consider as the favorite; "The local team was favored" [syn: favor]"

The issue, and relevance is about the offering, not any possible future intentions,

It's not the future intentions but the present intentions. The offering is completely irrlevent to God. God doesn't need to be offered anything. It is the attitude that counts.

*sigh yeah alright... let's examine it...


Genesis 4:1-15

Cain and Abel
"1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD."
2 Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. "

Ok. Please keep in mind that Cain is the elder brother.​

"3 So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground.
4 Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering;
5 but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. "

Ok. Why did Cain become angry? Do you think Abel would have become angry with that had happened with him? Wasn't Cain already set up to get angry before that? Wasn't getting angry Cain's choice? Wasn't that part of his personality?​

"6 Then the LORD said to Cain, " Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?
7 "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."

What is God teaching to Cain? Do those words have any relevance at all? Or they should be completely ignored as it has been done already?​

"8 Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. "

Doesn't that show Cain's personality? Doesn't that have any relevance whatsoever?​

"9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" And he said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?"

Is the fact that he is the elder brother any relevant? Wouldn't his parents ask him to take care and be responsible for his brother?
(Gotta get some sources on the relevance of birth order in psychology)...​

"10 He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground.
11 "Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
12 " When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth."
13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is too great to bear!
14 "Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15 So the LORD said to him, "Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him. "

This is the climax of the chapter. And the question that arises is: who put a curse on Cain? The answer is: Cain himself! Why? Well... on verse 15, God says that whoever kills Cain will have vengeance taken on him sevenfold. Someone could say "oh well, God put a curse on Cain", however, the verse continues: "the LORD appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him". Why would God put a curse on Cain and then protect Cain so that that curse would never happen!?!? Like... doesn't that contradict itself.

The point is that God is teaching something here. He is teaching the way sin works in the world, how it multiplies itself, and how it comes to being. Cain's choices are not God's choices, eventough God wants him to choose well and to learn and grow.

The text shows god was unhappy with fruit.. Anything beyond that is mere make believe.

Use logic, for once. And don't ignore 90% of the chapter, please.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I challenge you to provide any contextual evidence of this. Failure to do so means you are a liar and base your interpretations on mere speculations, fair nuff?

Done. Look up.


EDIT: Besides, that's a false dilemma. You are saying that I'm either a liar or not, and you are ignoring all the in betweens. It could be that I'm simply ignorant or that my logic is unsound or is simply doesn't follow.