Total Posts:377|Showing Posts:61-90|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reasons to Believe Creation Model

Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:47:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 1:57:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 1:24:44 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."

Romans 8 uses the term "bondage" when it refers to decay

Bondage:
- slavery or involuntary servitude; serfdom.
- the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
-the state or practice of being physically restrained, as by being tied up, chained, or put in handcuffs, for sexual gratification.
- Early English Law. personal subjection to the control of a superior; villeinage.

Law:
- A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

Notice how one definition does not have anything to do with the other, how anyone could confuse the word bondage for law is quite puzzling and bizarre.

You seem to be struggling with definitions and the challenge that Tstor presents having blended the bible with scientific facts. Your last few rebuttals have been pathetically weak. Your poor understanding of scriptures and scientific theory limits your effectiveness especially when your primary focus here was simply airing your skepticism without any foundational support in science or academia.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 2:01:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 1:47:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 2:09:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 2:01:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:47:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.

The links provided carry the scientific authority of Hugh Ross. Big Bang, Evolution and cosmology are not junk science . Try to follow the creation model and the scientific data that blends/ supports / strengthens the biblical accounts with remarkable duplicity.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 2:12:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 2:09:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:01:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:47:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.

The links provided carry the scientific authority of Hugh Ross. Big Bang, Evolution and cosmology are not junk science . Try to follow the creation model and the scientific data that blends/ supports / strengthens the biblical accounts with remarkable duplicity.

Hugh Ross is a junk scientist who has abandoned all scientific rigor and integrity and tries to hide his religious statements behind a fa"ade of scientific authority. In short, he's a liar and a hypocrite who is shamelessly profiteering from believers by saying what they want to hear and couching it in pseudoscientific jargon to give it a patina of authenticity.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 2:41:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 2:08:54 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:39:52 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Well, the Greek word "douleias", as used in Romans 8:21 can mean either figurative or literal slavery. Since we are talking about a concept, decay, then we can assume it is figurative. As Ross said, it describes the law of decay in that all creation will be freed from the figurative slavery of decay.

But, you keep putting in the word 'law' when no such reference is there, why do you do that?
I am not saying that it is in the verse. I am saying that it describes the law.

No, it doesn't describe the law at all, not even remotely. Read here and tell me where you see the phrase "Law of Decay":

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 3:00:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 1:57:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:24:44 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."

Romans 8 uses the term "bondage" when it refers to decay

Bondage:
- slavery or involuntary servitude; serfdom.
- the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
-the state or practice of being physically restrained, as by being tied up, chained, or put in handcuffs, for sexual gratification.
- Early English Law. personal subjection to the control of a superior; villeinage.

Law:
- A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

Notice how one definition does not have anything to do with the other, how anyone could confuse the word bondage for law is quite puzzling and bizarre.

You seem to be struggling with definitions and the challenge that Tstor presents having blended the bible with scientific facts. Your last few rebuttals have been pathetically weak. Your poor understanding of scriptures and scientific theory limits your effectiveness especially when your primary focus here was simply airing your skepticism without any foundational support in science or academia.

LOL. Still feeling the sting from being shown how ridiculous your aura and aura detector claims such that you're compelled to lash out?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 3:20:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 2:12:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:09:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:01:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:47:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.

The links provided carry the scientific authority of Hugh Ross. Big Bang, Evolution and cosmology are not junk science . Try to follow the creation model and the scientific data that blends/ supports / strengthens the biblical accounts with remarkable duplicity.

Hugh Ross is a junk scientist who has abandoned all scientific rigor and integrity and tries to hide his religious statements behind a fa"ade of scientific authority. In short, he's a liar and a hypocrite who is shamelessly profiteering from believers by saying what they want to hear and couching it in pseudoscientific jargon to give it a patina of authenticity.

Hugh Ross is not hiding behind his academic credentials as a scientists, astrophysicist or Christian leanings. He earned his right to his scientific opinions as much as he has the right to pursue his God given talent.
His views are published for all to read, learn , appreciate or criticize. But you cannot attack his qualifications. He is more than your average bible thumping preacher. He is what most would like to see in an educated person a healthy mix of science and religious authenticity.
Hugh Ross poses a challenge to our atheist members. His qualifications are impeccable because he addresses the fundamental differences that have divided Creationist views and the scientific community.
That leaves very little vulnerabilities for our atheist members to expose. So far all the refutation by our atheist members have been pathetically weak, ill prepared and woefully inadequate.
I encourage our theist members to capitalize on our atheist members incompetence and ineptness and mount an everlasting impression on their dull atheistic minds given the opening they have created by their failed coup.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 3:28:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 3:20:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:12:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:09:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:01:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:47:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.

The links provided carry the scientific authority of Hugh Ross. Big Bang, Evolution and cosmology are not junk science . Try to follow the creation model and the scientific data that blends/ supports / strengthens the biblical accounts with remarkable duplicity.

Hugh Ross is a junk scientist who has abandoned all scientific rigor and integrity and tries to hide his religious statements behind a fa"ade of scientific authority. In short, he's a liar and a hypocrite who is shamelessly profiteering from believers by saying what they want to hear and couching it in pseudoscientific jargon to give it a patina of authenticity.


Hugh Ross is not hiding behind his academic credentials as a scientists, astrophysicist or Christian leanings. He earned his right to his scientific opinions as much as he has the right to pursue his God given talent.
His views are published for all to read, learn , appreciate or criticize. But you cannot attack his qualifications. He is more than your average bible thumping preacher. He is what most would like to see in an educated person a healthy mix of science and religious authenticity.
Hugh Ross poses a challenge to our atheist members. His qualifications are impeccable because he addresses the fundamental differences that have divided Creationist views and the scientific community.

HIs qualifications mean nothing when he chooses to abandon scientific rigor for religious apologetics. If you believe him then you are equally lacking in rigor and integrity.

Good day, sir.

That leaves very little vulnerabilities for our atheist members to expose. So far all the refutation by our atheist members have been pathetically weak, ill prepared and woefully inadequate.
I encourage our theist members to capitalize on our atheist members incompetence and ineptness and mount an everlasting impression on their dull atheistic minds given the opening they have created by their failed coup.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 3:30:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 3:00:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:57:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:24:44 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."

Romans 8 uses the term "bondage" when it refers to decay

Bondage:
- slavery or involuntary servitude; serfdom.
- the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
-the state or practice of being physically restrained, as by being tied up, chained, or put in handcuffs, for sexual gratification.
- Early English Law. personal subjection to the control of a superior; villeinage.

Law:
- A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

Notice how one definition does not have anything to do with the other, how anyone could confuse the word bondage for law is quite puzzling and bizarre.

You seem to be struggling with definitions and the challenge that Tstor presents having blended the bible with scientific facts. Your last few rebuttals have been pathetically weak. Your poor understanding of scriptures and scientific theory limits your effectiveness especially when your primary focus here was simply airing your skepticism without any foundational support in science or academia.

LOL. Still feeling the sting from being shown how ridiculous your aura and aura detector claims such that you're compelled to lash out?

Your ignorance is unmatched by your stupidity. The largest IPO in the history of IPOs "Alibaba" is marketing aura scanners.

http://www.alibaba.com...
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 3:41:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 3:28:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:20:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:12:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:09:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:01:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:47:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.

The links provided carry the scientific authority of Hugh Ross. Big Bang, Evolution and cosmology are not junk science . Try to follow the creation model and the scientific data that blends/ supports / strengthens the biblical accounts with remarkable duplicity.

Hugh Ross is a junk scientist who has abandoned all scientific rigor and integrity and tries to hide his religious statements behind a fa"ade of scientific authority. In short, he's a liar and a hypocrite who is shamelessly profiteering from believers by saying what they want to hear and couching it in pseudoscientific jargon to give it a patina of authenticity.


Hugh Ross is not hiding behind his academic credentials as a scientists, astrophysicist or Christian leanings. He earned his right to his scientific opinions as much as he has the right to pursue his God given talent.
His views are published for all to read, learn , appreciate or criticize. But you cannot attack his qualifications. He is more than your average bible thumping preacher. He is what most would like to see in an educated person a healthy mix of science and religious authenticity.
Hugh Ross poses a challenge to our atheist members. His qualifications are impeccable because he addresses the fundamental differences that have divided Creationist views and the scientific community.

HIs qualifications mean nothing when he chooses to abandon scientific rigor for religious apologetics. If you believe him then you are equally lacking in rigor and integrity.

On the contrary, Hugh Ross's scientific and academic background lends tremendous credibility to the religious apologetics. Just as much as Dawkins did to the skeptic movement. But Hugh Ross has the added advantage of uniting both religion and science which is delivering a double punch for every single jab received. And for those who possess neither the scriptural or scientific learnings are just punching bags to the adherents of the Creation Model.

Good day, sir.

That leaves very little vulnerabilities for our atheist members to expose. So far all the refutation by our atheist members have been pathetically weak, ill prepared and woefully inadequate.
I encourage our theist members to capitalize on our atheist members incompetence and ineptness and mount an everlasting impression on their dull atheistic minds given the opening they have created by their failed coup.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 3:47:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 3:30:20 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:00:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:57:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:24:44 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."

Romans 8 uses the term "bondage" when it refers to decay

Bondage:
- slavery or involuntary servitude; serfdom.
- the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
-the state or practice of being physically restrained, as by being tied up, chained, or put in handcuffs, for sexual gratification.
- Early English Law. personal subjection to the control of a superior; villeinage.

Law:
- A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

Notice how one definition does not have anything to do with the other, how anyone could confuse the word bondage for law is quite puzzling and bizarre.

You seem to be struggling with definitions and the challenge that Tstor presents having blended the bible with scientific facts. Your last few rebuttals have been pathetically weak. Your poor understanding of scriptures and scientific theory limits your effectiveness especially when your primary focus here was simply airing your skepticism without any foundational support in science or academia.

LOL. Still feeling the sting from being shown how ridiculous your aura and aura detector claims such that you're compelled to lash out?

Your ignorance is unmatched by your stupidity. The largest IPO in the history of IPOs "Alibaba" is marketing aura scanners.

http://www.alibaba.com...

LOL. So, you didn't read that those are just barcode scanners? Well done.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 3:55:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As well, Hari, you can read the reviews of Alibaba, who will sell absolutely any piece of junk, much to the anger of their clients who consider Alibaba a scam...

http://www.sitejabber.com...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 3:58:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 3:47:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:30:20 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:00:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:57:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:24:44 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."

Romans 8 uses the term "bondage" when it refers to decay

Bondage:
- slavery or involuntary servitude; serfdom.
- the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
-the state or practice of being physically restrained, as by being tied up, chained, or put in handcuffs, for sexual gratification.
- Early English Law. personal subjection to the control of a superior; villeinage.

Law:
- A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

Notice how one definition does not have anything to do with the other, how anyone could confuse the word bondage for law is quite puzzling and bizarre.

You seem to be struggling with definitions and the challenge that Tstor presents having blended the bible with scientific facts. Your last few rebuttals have been pathetically weak. Your poor understanding of scriptures and scientific theory limits your effectiveness especially when your primary focus here was simply airing your skepticism without any foundational support in science or academia.

LOL. Still feeling the sting from being shown how ridiculous your aura and aura detector claims such that you're compelled to lash out?

Your ignorance is unmatched by your stupidity. The largest IPO in the history of IPOs "Alibaba" is marketing aura scanners.

http://www.alibaba.com...

LOL. So, you didn't read that those are just barcode scanners? Well done.

You don't read too good. The aura scanners are mixed with bar code scanners and show up when a search for scanners is initiated. Many of the aura scanners are also multifunction. You can now scan the groceries as well as the aura of the customer. The many benefits of aura scanners cannot be emphasized enough.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 4:01:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 3:58:02 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:47:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:30:20 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:00:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:57:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:24:44 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."

Romans 8 uses the term "bondage" when it refers to decay

Bondage:
- slavery or involuntary servitude; serfdom.
- the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
-the state or practice of being physically restrained, as by being tied up, chained, or put in handcuffs, for sexual gratification.
- Early English Law. personal subjection to the control of a superior; villeinage.

Law:
- A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

Notice how one definition does not have anything to do with the other, how anyone could confuse the word bondage for law is quite puzzling and bizarre.

You seem to be struggling with definitions and the challenge that Tstor presents having blended the bible with scientific facts. Your last few rebuttals have been pathetically weak. Your poor understanding of scriptures and scientific theory limits your effectiveness especially when your primary focus here was simply airing your skepticism without any foundational support in science or academia.

LOL. Still feeling the sting from being shown how ridiculous your aura and aura detector claims such that you're compelled to lash out?

Your ignorance is unmatched by your stupidity. The largest IPO in the history of IPOs "Alibaba" is marketing aura scanners.

http://www.alibaba.com...

LOL. So, you didn't read that those are just barcode scanners? Well done.

You don't read too good. The aura scanners are mixed with bar code scanners and show up when a search for scanners is initiated. Many of the aura scanners are also multifunction. You can now scan the groceries as well as the aura of the customer. The many benefits of aura scanners cannot be emphasized enough.

I read just fine, thanks. I looked at the individual products that were labeled aura scanners and they were no different than barcode scanners. It's a scam and you appear to support scammers and charlatans.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 4:28:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 3:41:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:28:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:20:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:12:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:09:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:01:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:47:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.

The links provided carry the scientific authority of Hugh Ross. Big Bang, Evolution and cosmology are not junk science . Try to follow the creation model and the scientific data that blends/ supports / strengthens the biblical accounts with remarkable duplicity.

Hugh Ross is a junk scientist who has abandoned all scientific rigor and integrity and tries to hide his religious statements behind a fa"ade of scientific authority. In short, he's a liar and a hypocrite who is shamelessly profiteering from believers by saying what they want to hear and couching it in pseudoscientific jargon to give it a patina of authenticity.


Hugh Ross is not hiding behind his academic credentials as a scientists, astrophysicist or Christian leanings. He earned his right to his scientific opinions as much as he has the right to pursue his God given talent.
His views are published for all to read, learn , appreciate or criticize. But you cannot attack his qualifications. He is more than your average bible thumping preacher. He is what most would like to see in an educated person a healthy mix of science and religious authenticity.
Hugh Ross poses a challenge to our atheist members. His qualifications are impeccable because he addresses the fundamental differences that have divided Creationist views and the scientific community.

HIs qualifications mean nothing when he chooses to abandon scientific rigor for religious apologetics. If you believe him then you are equally lacking in rigor and integrity.

On the contrary, Hugh Ross's scientific and academic background lends tremendous credibility to the religious apologetics. Just as much as Dawkins did to the skeptic movement. But Hugh Ross has the added advantage of uniting both religion and science which is delivering a double punch for every single jab received. And for those who possess neither the scriptural or scientific learnings are just punching bags to the adherents of the Creation Model.

One cannot unite two completely different methodologies. You are a fool to believe otherwise.

Good day, sir.

That leaves very little vulnerabilities for our atheist members to expose. So far all the refutation by our atheist members have been pathetically weak, ill prepared and woefully inadequate.
I encourage our theist members to capitalize on our atheist members incompetence and ineptness and mount an everlasting impression on their dull atheistic minds given the opening they have created by their failed coup.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 4:43:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 4:01:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:58:02 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:47:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:30:20 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:00:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:57:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:24:44 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."

Romans 8 uses the term "bondage" when it refers to decay

Bondage:
- slavery or involuntary servitude; serfdom.
- the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
-the state or practice of being physically restrained, as by being tied up, chained, or put in handcuffs, for sexual gratification.
- Early English Law. personal subjection to the control of a superior; villeinage.

Law:
- A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

Notice how one definition does not have anything to do with the other, how anyone could confuse the word bondage for law is quite puzzling and bizarre.

You seem to be struggling with definitions and the challenge that Tstor presents having blended the bible with scientific facts. Your last few rebuttals have been pathetically weak. Your poor understanding of scriptures and scientific theory limits your effectiveness especially when your primary focus here was simply airing your skepticism without any foundational support in science or academia.

LOL. Still feeling the sting from being shown how ridiculous your aura and aura detector claims such that you're compelled to lash out?

Your ignorance is unmatched by your stupidity. The largest IPO in the history of IPOs "Alibaba" is marketing aura scanners.

http://www.alibaba.com...

LOL. So, you didn't read that those are just barcode scanners? Well done.

You don't read too good. The aura scanners are mixed with bar code scanners and show up when a search for scanners is initiated. Many of the aura scanners are also multifunction. You can now scan the groceries as well as the aura of the customer. The many benefits of aura scanners cannot be emphasized enough.

I read just fine, thanks. I looked at the individual products that were labeled aura scanners and they were no different than barcode scanners. It's a scam and you appear to support scammers and charlatans.

You don't read too good. Some even mention type as biochemical which is very different from bar code readers. They even have a full body aura scanner listed for clinical application. Your ignorance is only matched by your stupidity.
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 4:48:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 4:28:56 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:41:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:28:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:20:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:12:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:09:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:01:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:47:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.

The links provided carry the scientific authority of Hugh Ross. Big Bang, Evolution and cosmology are not junk science . Try to follow the creation model and the scientific data that blends/ supports / strengthens the biblical accounts with remarkable duplicity.

Hugh Ross is a junk scientist who has abandoned all scientific rigor and integrity and tries to hide his religious statements behind a fa"ade of scientific authority. In short, he's a liar and a hypocrite who is shamelessly profiteering from believers by saying what they want to hear and couching it in pseudoscientific jargon to give it a patina of authenticity.


Hugh Ross is not hiding behind his academic credentials as a scientists, astrophysicist or Christian leanings. He earned his right to his scientific opinions as much as he has the right to pursue his God given talent.
His views are published for all to read, learn , appreciate or criticize. But you cannot attack his qualifications. He is more than your average bible thumping preacher. He is what most would like to see in an educated person a healthy mix of science and religious authenticity.
Hugh Ross poses a challenge to our atheist members. His qualifications are impeccable because he addresses the fundamental differences that have divided Creationist views and the scientific community.

HIs qualifications mean nothing when he chooses to abandon scientific rigor for religious apologetics. If you believe him then you are equally lacking in rigor and integrity.

On the contrary, Hugh Ross's scientific and academic background lends tremendous credibility to the religious apologetics. Just as much as Dawkins did to the skeptic movement. But Hugh Ross has the added advantage of uniting both religion and science which is delivering a double punch for every single jab received. And for those who possess neither the scriptural or scientific learnings are just punching bags to the adherents of the Creation Model.

One cannot unite two completely different methodologies. You are a fool to believe otherwise.

You are the bigger fool for rejecting a qualified scientist Hugh Ross who draws the parallels between Creation in the bible and scientific discoveries all within the scientific method. All you have is an unqualified opinion.

Good day, sir.

That leaves very little vulnerabilities for our atheist members to expose. So far all the refutation by our atheist members have been pathetically weak, ill prepared and woefully inadequate.
I encourage our theist members to capitalize on our atheist members incompetence and ineptness and mount an everlasting impression on their dull atheistic minds given the opening they have created by their failed coup.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 4:52:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 4:48:49 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:28:56 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:41:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:28:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:20:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:12:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:09:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:01:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:47:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.

The links provided carry the scientific authority of Hugh Ross. Big Bang, Evolution and cosmology are not junk science . Try to follow the creation model and the scientific data that blends/ supports / strengthens the biblical accounts with remarkable duplicity.

Hugh Ross is a junk scientist who has abandoned all scientific rigor and integrity and tries to hide his religious statements behind a fa"ade of scientific authority. In short, he's a liar and a hypocrite who is shamelessly profiteering from believers by saying what they want to hear and couching it in pseudoscientific jargon to give it a patina of authenticity.


Hugh Ross is not hiding behind his academic credentials as a scientists, astrophysicist or Christian leanings. He earned his right to his scientific opinions as much as he has the right to pursue his God given talent.
His views are published for all to read, learn , appreciate or criticize. But you cannot attack his qualifications. He is more than your average bible thumping preacher. He is what most would like to see in an educated person a healthy mix of science and religious authenticity.
Hugh Ross poses a challenge to our atheist members. His qualifications are impeccable because he addresses the fundamental differences that have divided Creationist views and the scientific community.

HIs qualifications mean nothing when he chooses to abandon scientific rigor for religious apologetics. If you believe him then you are equally lacking in rigor and integrity.

On the contrary, Hugh Ross's scientific and academic background lends tremendous credibility to the religious apologetics. Just as much as Dawkins did to the skeptic movement. But Hugh Ross has the added advantage of uniting both religion and science which is delivering a double punch for every single jab received. And for those who possess neither the scriptural or scientific learnings are just punching bags to the adherents of the Creation Model.

One cannot unite two completely different methodologies. You are a fool to believe otherwise.

You are the bigger fool for rejecting a qualified scientist Hugh Ross who draws the parallels between Creation in the bible and scientific discoveries all within the scientific method. All you have is an unqualified opinion.

No, I have a technical education that included basic biology, physics, and sub-branches of both disciplines and what he has done violates numerous procedural rules when conducting any kind of research. Once more, you're a fool to believe he has done anything but restate creationism in pseudoscientific terms to give his target audience some kind of false security in their mythology.

By the way, what are your qualifications to advance an opinion? Are you a cosmologist, biologist, or any related field?

Good day, sir.

That leaves very little vulnerabilities for our atheist members to expose. So far all the refutation by our atheist members have been pathetically weak, ill prepared and woefully inadequate.
I encourage our theist members to capitalize on our atheist members incompetence and ineptness and mount an everlasting impression on their dull atheistic minds given the opening they have created by their failed coup.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 4:54:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 4:43:20 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:01:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:58:02 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:47:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:30:20 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:00:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:57:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:24:44 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."

Romans 8 uses the term "bondage" when it refers to decay

Bondage:
- slavery or involuntary servitude; serfdom.
- the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
-the state or practice of being physically restrained, as by being tied up, chained, or put in handcuffs, for sexual gratification.
- Early English Law. personal subjection to the control of a superior; villeinage.

Law:
- A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

Notice how one definition does not have anything to do with the other, how anyone could confuse the word bondage for law is quite puzzling and bizarre.

You seem to be struggling with definitions and the challenge that Tstor presents having blended the bible with scientific facts. Your last few rebuttals have been pathetically weak. Your poor understanding of scriptures and scientific theory limits your effectiveness especially when your primary focus here was simply airing your skepticism without any foundational support in science or academia.

LOL. Still feeling the sting from being shown how ridiculous your aura and aura detector claims such that you're compelled to lash out?

Your ignorance is unmatched by your stupidity. The largest IPO in the history of IPOs "Alibaba" is marketing aura scanners.

http://www.alibaba.com...

LOL. So, you didn't read that those are just barcode scanners? Well done.

You don't read too good. The aura scanners are mixed with bar code scanners and show up when a search for scanners is initiated. Many of the aura scanners are also multifunction. You can now scan the groceries as well as the aura of the customer. The many benefits of aura scanners cannot be emphasized enough.

I read just fine, thanks. I looked at the individual products that were labeled aura scanners and they were no different than barcode scanners. It's a scam and you appear to support scammers and charlatans.

You don't read too good. Some even mention type as biochemical which is very different from bar code readers. They even have a full body aura scanner listed for clinical application. Your ignorance is only matched by your stupidity.

You are a promoter of charlatans and scams as is Alibaba. How very sad to have a criminal element here.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 5:10:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 4:52:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:48:49 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:28:56 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:41:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:28:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:20:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:12:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:09:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:01:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:47:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.

The links provided carry the scientific authority of Hugh Ross. Big Bang, Evolution and cosmology are not junk science . Try to follow the creation model and the scientific data that blends/ supports / strengthens the biblical accounts with remarkable duplicity.

Hugh Ross is a junk scientist who has abandoned all scientific rigor and integrity and tries to hide his religious statements behind a fa"ade of scientific authority. In short, he's a liar and a hypocrite who is shamelessly profiteering from believers by saying what they want to hear and couching it in pseudoscientific jargon to give it a patina of authenticity.


Hugh Ross is not hiding behind his academic credentials as a scientists, astrophysicist or Christian leanings. He earned his right to his scientific opinions as much as he has the right to pursue his God given talent.
His views are published for all to read, learn , appreciate or criticize. But you cannot attack his qualifications. He is more than your average bible thumping preacher. He is what most would like to see in an educated person a healthy mix of science and religious authenticity.
Hugh Ross poses a challenge to our atheist members. His qualifications are impeccable because he addresses the fundamental differences that have divided Creationist views and the scientific community.

HIs qualifications mean nothing when he chooses to abandon scientific rigor for religious apologetics. If you believe him then you are equally lacking in rigor and integrity.

On the contrary, Hugh Ross's scientific and academic background lends tremendous credibility to the religious apologetics. Just as much as Dawkins did to the skeptic movement. But Hugh Ross has the added advantage of uniting both religion and science which is delivering a double punch for every single jab received. And for those who possess neither the scriptural or scientific learnings are just punching bags to the adherents of the Creation Model.

One cannot unite two completely different methodologies. You are a fool to believe otherwise.

You are the bigger fool for rejecting a qualified scientist Hugh Ross who draws the parallels between Creation in the bible and scientific discoveries all within the scientific method. All you have is an unqualified opinion.

No, I have a technical education that included basic biology, physics, and sub-branches of both disciplines and what he has done violates numerous procedural rules when conducting any kind of research. Once more, you're a fool to believe he has done anything but restate creationism in pseudoscientific terms to give his target audience some kind of false security in their mythology.

How come your qualifications are not reflected in your rebuttals. You are struggling to even mount a half decent response to the creation model which is the topic of this thread.

By the way, what are your qualifications to advance an opinion? Are you a cosmologist, biologist, or any related field?

I have held all those qualifications through my many life cycles. This is my second enlightenment. You cannot even get past Genesis 1. You must be the ant I spared in my previous life which was filled with my furst enlightenment.

Good day, sir.

That leaves very little vulnerabilities for our atheist members to expose. So far all the refutation by our atheist members have been pathetically weak, ill prepared and woefully inadequate.
I encourage our theist members to capitalize on our atheist members incompetence and ineptness and mount an everlasting impression on their dull atheistic minds given the opening they have created by their failed coup.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 5:13:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 4:54:27 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:43:20 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:01:32 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:58:02 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:47:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:30:20 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:00:56 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:57:00 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:24:44 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:38:08 PM, tstor wrote:
At 9/7/2015 11:35:34 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

I think that you have realized that it is in there, but not worded the way you would like it to be. Which is fine, but I do not see the point of continuing back and forth. The words in Romans 8 are not going to change.

No, it isn't there, that is a fact. There is no Law of Decay in Scriptures.
"Uhuh."

Romans 8 uses the term "bondage" when it refers to decay

Bondage:
- slavery or involuntary servitude; serfdom.
- the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.
-the state or practice of being physically restrained, as by being tied up, chained, or put in handcuffs, for sexual gratification.
- Early English Law. personal subjection to the control of a superior; villeinage.

Law:
- A statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

Notice how one definition does not have anything to do with the other, how anyone could confuse the word bondage for law is quite puzzling and bizarre.

You seem to be struggling with definitions and the challenge that Tstor presents having blended the bible with scientific facts. Your last few rebuttals have been pathetically weak. Your poor understanding of scriptures and scientific theory limits your effectiveness especially when your primary focus here was simply airing your skepticism without any foundational support in science or academia.

LOL. Still feeling the sting from being shown how ridiculous your aura and aura detector claims such that you're compelled to lash out?

Your ignorance is unmatched by your stupidity. The largest IPO in the history of IPOs "Alibaba" is marketing aura scanners.

http://www.alibaba.com...

LOL. So, you didn't read that those are just barcode scanners? Well done.

You don't read too good. The aura scanners are mixed with bar code scanners and show up when a search for scanners is initiated. Many of the aura scanners are also multifunction. You can now scan the groceries as well as the aura of the customer. The many benefits of aura scanners cannot be emphasized enough.

I read just fine, thanks. I looked at the individual products that were labeled aura scanners and they were no different than barcode scanners. It's a scam and you appear to support scammers and charlatans.

You don't read too good. Some even mention type as biochemical which is very different from bar code readers. They even have a full body aura scanner listed for clinical application. Your ignorance is only matched by your stupidity.

You are a promoter of charlatans and scams as is Alibaba. How very sad to have a criminal element here.

You don't read too well. The OP is about the Creation Model. Have you exhausted your knowledge on the subject? Please don't derail this thread. Admit you are stumped and move on.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 5:16:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.

The links provided carry the scientific authority of Hugh Ross. Big Bang, Evolution and cosmology are not junk science . Try to follow the creation model and the scientific data that blends/ supports / strengthens the biblical accounts with remarkable duplicity.

Hugh Ross is a junk scientist who has abandoned all scientific rigor and integrity and tries to hide his religious statements behind a fa"ade of scientific authority. In short, he's a liar and a hypocrite who is shamelessly profiteering from believers by saying what they want to hear and couching it in pseudoscientific jargon to give it a patina of authenticity.


Hugh Ross is not hiding behind his academic credentials as a scientists, astrophysicist or Christian leanings. He earned his right to his scientific opinions as much as he has the right to pursue his God given talent.
His views are published for all to read, learn , appreciate or criticize. But you cannot attack his qualifications. He is more than your average bible thumping preacher. He is what most would like to see in an educated person a healthy mix of science and religious authenticity.
Hugh Ross poses a challenge to our atheist members. His qualifications are impeccable because he addresses the fundamental differences that have divided Creationist views and the scientific community.

HIs qualifications mean nothing when he chooses to abandon scientific rigor for religious apologetics. If you believe him then you are equally lacking in rigor and integrity.

On the contrary, Hugh Ross's scientific and academic background lends tremendous credibility to the religious apologetics. Just as much as Dawkins did to the skeptic movement. But Hugh Ross has the added advantage of uniting both religion and science which is delivering a double punch for every single jab received. And for those who possess neither the scriptural or scientific learnings are just punching bags to the adherents of the Creation Model.

One cannot unite two completely different methodologies. You are a fool to believe otherwise.

You are the bigger fool for rejecting a qualified scientist Hugh Ross who draws the parallels between Creation in the bible and scientific discoveries all within the scientific method. All you have is an unqualified opinion.

No, I have a technical education that included basic biology, physics, and sub-branches of both disciplines and what he has done violates numerous procedural rules when conducting any kind of research. Once more, you're a fool to believe he has done anything but restate creationism in pseudoscientific terms to give his target audience some kind of false security in their mythology.

How come your qualifications are not reflected in your rebuttals. You are struggling to even mount a half decent response to the creation model which is the topic of this thread.

By the way, what are your qualifications to advance an opinion? Are you a cosmologist, biologist, or any related field?

I have held all those qualifications through my many life cycles. This is my second enlightenment. You cannot even get past Genesis 1. You must be the ant I spared in my previous life which was filled with my furst enlightenment.

Humans don't live but once. All you have are your delusions of grandeur and your tower of invincible ego. You are no more enlightened than a beggar on the streets of any city, perhaps less so. I would pit you but it would be a waste of such an emotion on such an out of control ego.

Good day, sir.

That leaves very little vulnerabilities for our atheist members to expose. So far all the refutation by our atheist members have been pathetically weak, ill prepared and woefully inadequate.
I encourage our theist members to capitalize on our atheist members incompetence and ineptness and mount an everlasting impression on their dull atheistic minds given the opening they have created by their failed coup.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 5:22:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 5:10:38 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:52:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:48:49 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 4:28:56 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:41:29 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:28:15 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:20:52 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:12:31 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:09:37 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 2:01:54 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/8/2015 1:47:55 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 12:27:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/8/2015 10:09:06 AM, tstor wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:25:45 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
You mean straining to reinterpret texts far outside linguistic and semantic credibility so people can still feel it's okay to believe them?
Not at all what I mean. I think you added to what I said just a bit
That's exactly what's happening though. Theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on. Essentially, they're changing traditional translations of ordinary words to make them fit new information. So rather than acknowledging that long-accepted and reasonable translations don't fit new knowledge, they're retrospectively pleading that reasonable and well-accepted translations should never have been accepted.

Which is of course, unreasonable.
Once again, give me specifics. Because you simply stated "theologians are straining to find ways to make a day not a day, to make sky not sky, and so on," with no real examples, I can reasonably reply:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.

The links provided carry the scientific authority of Hugh Ross. Big Bang, Evolution and cosmology are not junk science . Try to follow the creation model and the scientific data that blends/ supports / strengthens the biblical accounts with remarkable duplicity.

Hugh Ross is a junk scientist who has abandoned all scientific rigor and integrity and tries to hide his religious statements behind a fa"ade of scientific authority. In short, he's a liar and a hypocrite who is shamelessly profiteering from believers by saying what they want to hear and couching it in pseudoscientific jargon to give it a patina of authenticity.


Hugh Ross is not hiding behind his academic credentials as a scientists, astrophysicist or Christian leanings. He earned his right to his scientific opinions as much as he has the right to pursue his God given talent.
His views are published for all to read, learn , appreciate or criticize. But you cannot attack his qualifications. He is more than your average bible thumping preacher. He is what most would like to see in an educated person a healthy mix of science and religious authenticity.
Hugh Ross poses a challenge to our atheist members. His qualifications are impeccable because he addresses the fundamental differences that have divided Creationist views and the scientific community.

HIs qualifications mean nothing when he chooses to abandon scientific rigor for religious apologetics. If you believe him then you are equally lacking in rigor and integrity.

On the contrary, Hugh Ross's scientific and academic background lends tremendous credibility to the religious apologetics. Just as much as Dawkins did to the skeptic movement. But Hugh Ross has the added advantage of uniting both religion and science which is delivering a double punch for every single jab received. And for those who possess neither the scriptural or scientific learnings are just punching bags to the adherents of the Creation Model.

One cannot unite two completely different methodologies. You are a fool to believe otherwise.

You are the bigger fool for rejecting a qualified scientist Hugh Ross who draws the parallels between Creation in the bible and scientific discoveries all within the scientific method. All you have is an unqualified opinion.

No, I have a technical education that included basic biology, physics, and sub-branches of both disciplines and what he has done violates numerous procedural rules when conducting any kind of research. Once more, you're a fool to believe he has done anything but restate creationism in pseudoscientific terms to give his target audience some kind of false security in their mythology.

How come your qualifications are not reflected in your rebuttals. You are struggling to even mount a half decent response to the creation model which is the topic of this thread.

By the way, what are your qualifications to advance an opinion? Are you a cosmologist, biologist, or any related field?

I have held all those qualifications through my many life cycles. This is my second enlightenment. You cannot even get past Genesis 1. You must be the ant I spared in my previous life which was filled with my furst enlightenment.

Yes, you promote charlatans and scammers because you're most likely one yourself. I wouldn't be surprised if you are the one trying to sell the two pieces of wood held together by string as an aura scanner.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 5:46:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 5:16:56 PM, dhardage wrote:
No they have not.

Ty, on the one hand you're claiming ignorance and asking me for specifics like when is a day in Genesis not a day. On the other hand, your post showed later that you already knew the specifics, and of course you already know that traditionally, creation in Genesis has always been interpreted as taking place over six days because every theologian then claimed that was the only reasonable interpretation.

You are further aware that this account only changed when theologians realised they'd have to change it to fit accepted science. Then suddenly, there was more than one reasonable interpretation, which previously there had not been.

So I think you understood perfectly well what I was talking about.

Let's have no further contrarianism. Thank you.

You are doing a terrible job at refuting the Creation Model. You are out of your league.
Tstor has bridged the science and bible gap and has mounted a formidable challenge. You are neither well versed in the scriptures nor are you familiar with the science. That leaves you outside of the discussion which is a position you are familiar with being both culturally and geographically isolated living down under.

He has bridged nothing with nothing, repeating often used and always refuted arguments that have exactly zero credibility in any real scientific context. Ruv Draba has explained to him how and why he is wrong and he has chosen to ignore it because it's not what he wants to believe. His entire thesis is flawed and little ore than a rehash of junk science that religious apologists have been trying to promote ever since they realized that they could no longer foist off their literal interpretation of their holy book as fact.

The links provided carry the scientific authority of Hugh Ross. Big Bang, Evolution and cosmology are not junk science . Try to follow the creation model and the scientific data that blends/ supports / strengthens the biblical accounts with remarkable duplicity.

Hugh Ross is a junk scientist who has abandoned all scientific rigor and integrity and tries to hide his religious statements behind a fa"ade of scientific authority. In short, he's a liar and a hypocrite who is shamelessly profiteering from believers by saying what they want to hear and couching it in pseudoscientific jargon to give it a patina of authenticity.


Hugh Ross is not hiding behind his academic credentials as a scientists, astrophysicist or Christian leanings. He earned his right to his scientific opinions as much as he has the right to pursue his God given talent.
His views are published for all to read, learn , appreciate or criticize. But you cannot attack his qualifications. He is more than your average bible thumping preacher. He is what most would like to see in an educated person a healthy mix of science and religious authenticity.
Hugh Ross poses a challenge to our atheist members. His qualifications are impeccable because he addresses the fundamental differences that have divided Creationist views and the scientific community.

HIs qualifications mean nothing when he chooses to abandon scientific rigor for religious apologetics. If you believe him then you are equally lacking in rigor and integrity.

On the contrary, Hugh Ross's scientific and academic background lends tremendous credibility to the religious apologetics. Just as much as Dawkins did to the skeptic movement. But Hugh Ross has the added advantage of uniting both religion and science which is delivering a double punch for every single jab received. And for those who possess neither the scriptural or scientific learnings are just punching bags to the adherents of the Creation Model.

One cannot unite two completely different methodologies. You are a fool to believe otherwise.

You are the bigger fool for rejecting a qualified scientist Hugh Ross who draws the parallels between Creation in the bible and scientific discoveries all within the scientific method. All you have is an unqualified opinion.

No, I have a technical education that included basic biology, physics, and sub-branches of both disciplines and what he has done violates numerous procedural rules when conducting any kind of research. Once more, you're a fool to believe he has done anything but restate creationism in pseudoscientific terms to give his target audience some kind of false security in their mythology.

How come your qualifications are not reflected in your rebuttals. You are struggling to even mount a half decent response to the creation model which is the topic of this thread.

By the way, what are your qualifications to advance an opinion? Are you a cosmologist, biologist, or any related field?

I have held all those qualifications through my many life cycles. This is my second enlightenment. You cannot even get past Genesis 1. You must be the ant I spared in my previous life which was filled with my furst enlightenment.

Humans don't live but once. All you have are your delusions of grandeur and your tower of invincible ego. You are no more enlightened than a beggar on the streets of any city, perhaps less so. I would pit you but it would be a waste of such an emotion on such an out of control ego.

That is why all your knowledge comes to a dead end. A few years of college is the best you can hope for. You are no match for people who spent several life cycles pursuing knowledge and the larger consciousness through transcendental discipline . Beggars are a consequence of their bad karma. I am not surprised spending your last life cycle as an ant as short as it might have been before you got stomped on has hardly improved your condition in your current life cycle. The rapid development necessary to leave behind your ant wrappings might take many more life cycles.
Good day, sir.

That leaves very little vulnerabilities for our atheist members to expose. So far all the refutation by our atheist members have been pathetically weak, ill prepared and woefully inadequate.
I encourage our theist members to capitalize on our atheist members incompetence and ineptness and mount an everlasting impression on their dull atheistic minds given the opening they have created by their failed coup.

John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 5:55:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 3:55:26 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
As well, Hari, you can read the reviews of Alibaba, who will sell absolutely any piece of junk, much to the anger of their clients who consider Alibaba a scam...

http://www.sitejabber.com...

At a glance the link shows many 5 star ratings. It was the biggest IPO in IPO history. Quite an enviable position.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 5:57:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 5:55:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:55:26 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
As well, Hari, you can read the reviews of Alibaba, who will sell absolutely any piece of junk, much to the anger of their clients who consider Alibaba a scam...

http://www.sitejabber.com...

At a glance the link shows many 5 star ratings. It was the biggest IPO in IPO history. Quite an enviable position.

There are a few 5 star ratings, but the vast majority are scammer alerts.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Harikrish
Posts: 26,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 6:00:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 5:57:28 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:55:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:55:26 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
As well, Hari, you can read the reviews of Alibaba, who will sell absolutely any piece of junk, much to the anger of their clients who consider Alibaba a scam...

http://www.sitejabber.com...

At a glance the link shows many 5 star ratings. It was the biggest IPO in IPO history. Quite an enviable position.

There are a few 5 star ratings, but the vast majority are scammer alerts.

No one has complained about the aura scanners.
dhardage
Posts: 4,546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 6:16:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 6:00:28 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:57:28 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:55:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:55:26 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
As well, Hari, you can read the reviews of Alibaba, who will sell absolutely any piece of junk, much to the anger of their clients who consider Alibaba a scam...

http://www.sitejabber.com...

At a glance the link shows many 5 star ratings. It was the biggest IPO in IPO history. Quite an enviable position.

There are a few 5 star ratings, but the vast majority are scammer alerts.

No one has complained about the aura scanners.

I found one review of an aura scanner and it was as if a child wrote it. No words larger than two syllables and full of spelling errors. Doesn't say much for the average consumer.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 13,644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2015 6:52:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/8/2015 6:00:28 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:57:28 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/8/2015 5:55:12 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/8/2015 3:55:26 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
As well, Hari, you can read the reviews of Alibaba, who will sell absolutely any piece of junk, much to the anger of their clients who consider Alibaba a scam...

http://www.sitejabber.com...

At a glance the link shows many 5 star ratings. It was the biggest IPO in IPO history. Quite an enviable position.

There are a few 5 star ratings, but the vast majority are scammer alerts.

No one has complained about the aura scanners.

LOL. Out of the 267 reviews, well over 200 are scam alerts. And, since Alibaba caters to the criminal element, criminals will be buying the aura scanners and using them to scam other people. Of course, they aren't going to complain, they're criminals.
'
However, honest folks looking for a good deal get ripped off. It's all there for anyone to read.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
There would be peace if you obeyed us.~Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.