₦airaland Forum

I wonder where these guys come from who just jump into things without thinking Smh

Liekiller:
No it's not relevant. It doesn't even disturb me IF he actually believed in a creator. What disturbs me is that you insinuate that if ONE big thinker believed in a creator there must be a creator. That's no valid point.

to make things short I did not and have never insinuated this. So be quiet and get off my back. You call me dumb get you've been attacking me for a point I never even made. Quite dumb of you if you ask me.

davien:
And he also believed in alchemy,does that make him correct on all counts?
Stephen Hawking even with his discovery of "Hawkin radiation" about black-holes,would be laughed to scorn if he believed the earth was flat.
Doesn't it strike you as odd,that as scientists that they were..... they only made relevant contributions following empirical methods?
No contribution whatsoever was made in the alleged "creation science" because it isn't a scientific proposition whatsoever.
And why do you keep using the term "evolutionist"? when evolution is not an "ism"?
This is another dishonest tactic...


Okay,did you succeed? or did you as usual give no coherent answer?



Is ken ham a scientist? and would it even matter?....I could also list scientists who also believe the earth is flat and 9/11 was a conspiracy, does that make it true?


"ardent follower" you say? since when does one become an ardent follower in science?

You didn't even know the basics of Newton's principles and you're claiming to be an "ardent follower"(which is a ridiculous and fallacious term by the way)

Well how do you know he didn't?
In an age of "thought police", where you could be killed for not believing what you were told...burning at the stake was the scare tactic christians used then, now it's hell...

One becomes an ardent follower in "science" once the concept is the of evolution of all organisms from a common ancestor. It cannot be proved. It cannot be observed. It is an interpretation of the timelines. An opinion of history, not science.

My lack of belief in that particular interpretation would not invalidate my position as a scientist. If stephen Hawking refuses to believe in the common ancestor concept it wouldn't make him any less a scientist.

Please try to make your points quick and precise. Instead of leading in different directions.

Liekiller:
No it's not relevant. It doesn't even disturb me IF he actually believed in a creator. What disturbs me is that you insinuate that if ONE big thinker believed in a creator there must be a creator. That's no valid point.
You shouldn't refer to modern scientists to "validate yourself as a creationist". But you should definitely do so when you attempt to discuss (or more likely refute) scientific theories. If you have a deep knowledge of any science as you claim you should actually know that you cannot disprove a scientific theory established with scientific methods by stomping on the floor and exclaiming furiously that it's a lie. Neither can you disprove it with so-called creationist science, because that does NOT use scientific methods. So, if you argue against science, then use science to do so. Everything else makes no sense and -sorry to say again - makes you look dumb.

when did I insinuate that one big thinker believing in a creator proves there is a creator? Please go back and read the point of this thread and the reason I argue against davien. My only point is that my believing in a creator does not make me any less a scientist. Simple. You call me dumb and yet you cannot even comprehend the simple point that so many here have tried to make. You rudely and arrogantly made nonsense conclusions on matters you think are just beginning here. Please park well. I have no issue with you. I have my own interests. And I did not come to have a scientific debate or disprove any scientific method.

Liekiller:
1) how is it relevant for the topic if or if not Isaac Newton (17th/18th century) believed in a creator?
2) why do creationists never quote any scientists that lived after the 18th century? How about some 21st century cosmologists or evolutionary biologists?
3) i know it's asking too much, but how about actually trying to obtain in-depth knowledge about 21st century science? You don't even understand its most basic principles and yet you "refute" it. That - sorry to say - makes creationists look dumb.
4) i don't care whether or not Newton believed in a creator, it's irrelevant to the topic. BUT: please take the historical context into account when debating such matters. The fact is: during the 17th century it would have been extremely unwise to question the common belief and thus the churches authority publicly. This doesn't mean people didn't do so. It means they would have most likely done so in secret to avoid execution.

First, it is very relevant for the topic as it shows that one of the most prominent thinkers who ever lived believed in a creator. Thus showing that belief in a creator does not make one any less of a scientist. Creationists are no less scientists that evolutonists. And I was merely trying to prove plaetton wrong and show up his bold lying.

Your second point makes no sense ma'am. why would I point to an evolutionary biologist for validation as a creationist? And yes, there are very reputable scientists of our modern world who believe in God. Look at the recent debate between ken ham and bill bye and see ken mention some.

And who are you to say I don't even understand the idi.otic philosophies you call science? For your information I was an ardent follower and product of this system you follow before I began to think straight and apply common sense and question what I found out to be my beliefs. Your arrogance is sickening.

And your last point merely shows you know little to nothing about Newton if you think he questioned "common belief" in a creator in secret.

plaetton:
Just look at your own words. " physical manifestations of haphazard energy ".
The entire universe is the physical manifestations of haphazard energy.
Da a aah hhh.!!

Plaetton with all his proud eloquence is a manifestation of haphazard energy.

Sometimes you speak like a reasoning man, other times you're words are ill-thought out, like a rattling child.

davien:
sand dunes are haphazardous energy?
And you claim I'm making a "cop-out", but you're the one telling me not to make an obvious case(in the bolded text)...

Anyway let's consider the demonstrable "kinetic theory of matter" in which all matter is made of molecules(or atoms) in constant motion....

The motions are more chaotic when they have no or less restrictive bonds or with increased temperature...

Without increase in the chaotic nature of this particles,useful energy cannot be obtained...so without the chaotic nature of molecules(or atoms) complex reactions that lead to order will not occur... The sun wouldn't liberate energy without the chaotic process of fusion,you couldn't live without the combustion(for digestion) and assimilation of oxygen to various parts of your body...etc

So aren't those chaotic processes that lead to order,or do you have to blacklist them too?

All you've been doing(which is usual for a creationist) is to deny a response with no counter responses....I'm not surprised though
They sure demonstrably don't,so does "god".
Can you tell us why we have demonstrable evidence for all that except of a being that allegedly conjures matter from absolutely nothing?

Take a very good look at the bolded. You are quoted as saying the assimilation of oxygen and digestion of food and the liberation of energy by the sun are chaotic processes? . Chaos means disorder. All you've given me here are very purposeful and directed and sustained processes. I'll ignore this then, and wait for more examples.

I should probably deal with this shaa. As it seems you do not even understand the kinetic theory of matter.

The motions are more chaotic when they have no or less restrictive bonds or with increased temperature...

The above is correct, but then you went on to say this:

Without increase in the chaotic nature of this particles,useful energy cannot be obtained...so without the chaotic nature of molecules(or atoms) complex reactions that lead to order will not occur

Energy is random and chaotic by itself in nature. That is readily known. And you've given examples of its manifestations of itself: sand dunes. I even gave another example for you; lightning.

It is only direct channeling and manipulation with sustaining of this force that yields order and useful work. You giving this example is very pathetic and shows the very basal deception I have noted over and over again: hijacking and twisting of scientific definitions to suit your own godless worldview. Quite pathetic.

rationalmind:
How have you been bro? Quite an age.

I've been great. Trust you've been too.

Rationalmind

.

Hey man. Long time.

davien:
Part with your ad hominems and give concise definitions....what exactly do you consider "order" and "chaos" because time and time again I keep telling you things like dunes are ordered and yet where brought together by chaotic sand storms...
Many things are "orderly" and yet are caused by chaotic systems...
And even still this is a non sequitur(no point), because "orderly" or not a "god" still has to be demonstrated before attaching any feature of nature to it.

What you're basically saying is analogous of being in a hot room and then concluding preconceived ideas that an invisible dragon is heating up the room....You can claim "it's a dragon/god" all you want but without substantial proof you have nothing.

Please give an example of a purposeful orderly system brought about by chaos. Don't give sand dunes or lightning for examples as they are just physical manifestations of haphazard energy. Give me substantial examples and stop using base cop-outs.

And your hot room analogy is also puerile. What I'm basically saying is analogous of being in a house in cold barren and dark Antarctica with a heater and water and light. I logically conclude that these things did not appear suddenly as a result of reckless and wild polar winds.

voltron:
I find your post distasteful...If I were Angel Michael, I will smite you down before you breath the first two words of your post.

Thank God you are not Angel Michael.

jayriginal:
I do.

Do you think I don't? If you would tell me yes, please give me a reason apart from the fact that I would reject your own way of thinking and views, as that does not make you different from me much in that respect.

davien:
joshthefirst we don't create things we use "starting materials" to make things, we're familiar with that.
What we're not familiar with is a hocus pocus "creation" where anything can be led into existence ex nihilo(from nothing)...

Aside from the fact that what you wrote there is false and shows you do not even have a true concept of creation, I am also not familiar with the hocus pocus ruse of evolution you deify.
You can prove it substantially please. Or you could just go and hide as usual. You and plaetton are quite good at that.

Order cannot come out of chaos without an existential force and power bringing it about.

davien:
Thugnificent did newton ever succeed in his creationism and his philosophers stone?...
If creationism or an act of "creation" cannot be substantiated and/or demonstrated why call it "science"?
This is basically a masquerade...where you claim "science is being hijacked"when you're the one spreading misinformation.

an act of creation should be substantiated? Lol. The very technology you are using is an act of creation. The very clothes you wear. The nuclear energy that now gives us electricity, the painting hanging on the wall of your bedroom, all the advances and achievements of the sciences and the arts, the well-trimmed lawn in front of your house. All these are substantiated acts of creation. Don't be foolish. Man has been creating for millennia now. And it is creativity and inquiry that forms the bedrock of science. Not nonsense self-insulting fantastical speculations like the evolution of all things from a form of life.

plaetton:
Do you really want me address thugnificent?

OK then. I will.

Dear thugnificent, I am tempted to invoke the "S" word on you, But because you are kinda new here, I will be lenient.
You see, our job here is to carry a long whip to stamp out public idiocy, or at the least, reduce it. Davidylan should tell you. He is a regular beneficiary .

Now, my warning to you.
Don't you ever claim that Isaac Newton was a creationist , talkless of invoking such in a public discussion. I am saying this for your own good.

If I have to explain to you why, then I will forced to discipline you with our rod of finely measured common sense.

You should be ashamed of yourself.
http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/converging-paths-truth/brief-survey-sir-isaac-newtons-views-religion
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

plaetton:
Davidylan, when someone of your academic Caleb re publicly declare Isaac Newton a creationist, it dumbfounded me in no small measure.

Pls think about Isaac Newton again and then tell me again that he was a creationist.
I am actually giving you a chance to think, think deeper. Pls.

How pathetic of you Plaetton. Resorting to nonsense methods of invoking inner confusion and mental rigmaroling to prove your point?

And yes. Sir Isaac Newton believed in a creator.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Isaac_Newton

davidylan:
the problem with Ray's comment (which also exposes the bankruptcy of many here who are unable to think outside the box) is that if the creation of earth was simply an issue of evolution (survival of the fittest), then what is the evolutionary benefit of [i]sexua[/i]l reproduction? I remember this question came up a while back and no one here was able to answer.

plaetton tried to actually. But he only ended up embarrassing himself and running away. That is in fact the only thing they do when they are forced into serious arguments these days. They either embarrass themselves or foresee their embarrassment and disappear for a short period of time before emerging once more with puerile threads such as this

Thugnificent:
I get your point, but are you saying there aren't creatio nist who have made great impact in science. from the top of my head, Isaac Newton and Charles Babbage should ring a bell. But Talk origins would have none of that. I find it funny that creationists aren't given a chance to publish creation science in peer reviewed journals, that also strikes me as discriminating.

Don't mind this deluded man. He hijacks definitions to suit his own propaganda of eliminitating any belief in any deity and even statingthat belief in deity can hamper scientific development. That is the imperative of these guys who fight any concept of a godly worldview. They keep forgetting that The very masters of science believed in God. They won't tell you that there are even contemporary scientists of very reputable achievements that believe in God.

They purport an idioti.c philosophy of macro cellular evolution as fact and try to make the general public believe that godlessness and science go hand in hand. They will be stopped.

jayriginal:
Isnt that the difference between a mind open to learning as opposed to one closed by dogma? Blind faith?

I suppose you have the open to learning sort of mind eh?

plaetton:
@joshthefirst,
Contradictions galore.

First you say that man is inherently bad (sinful ), and no amount of moral uprightness can make him good.
Now you say that you were once sinful (as in sinful acts), but you are good now.

The funny truth you have revealed here is that your past sins are haunting you, so much so that it is making you project your guilt and shame onto others.
I had always suspected this, but you have confirmed it.

Please learn to deal with your inner demons without projecting your moral schizophrenia onto people who do not share your religious delusions.

My opinion is that you haven't yet conquered your inner demons. The conquest of self is the greatest conquest of all.

Until then, you are far from competent to call anyone else a sinner.
"Take ye out the log that is in thine eyes before thou pointeth at the spec in another person's eye".

Do you know said the above?

If this is what you have plowed from my posts so far, then you are seriously very confused and cannot read and understand. Please post references of your claims. Maybe they'll help you go back and read again and get the real picture.

frank317:
He strongly believes he has evil sinful nature because of some Jewish man he had never met.

For clarity's sake i will address this misunderstanding. It seems you've become blinded by some dogma you read about Christianity thats why you cannot be able to grasp the simple facts i have been typing here by simply reading and understanding. This is what foolish blindness and maybe some bitterness has turned you into.

I had a sinful nature because i realized i was always tending to sinning and running away from God and rejecting his mercy and grace and righteousness. I kept indulging in sinful pleasures and impunities. Even before I met Jesus, this fact was already settled in my mind.

frank317: His whole reality is based on some books he just believe is the word of God. Yet despite all these no man has ever lived up to the so called standard of the bible.

No one has ever lived up to the standard of the bible and no one ever will of course. Only Jesus did that. You do not even know the basic tenets of the organization you mindlessly(and quite foolishly) fight against.

frank317: They know they Sin... Unfortunately they condemn themselves.

Yes we all know sin. The difference between me and you is that I am no longer condemned because of the sacrifice of Jesus. But your sin condemns you, whether you condemn yourself or not, whether you care or not. Sin brings condemnation. Jesus brings salvation.

davien:
The fact that morality is subjective,doesn't change life being preferable to death as minimizing or ceasing pain maximizes happiness....

You realize you have just contradicted yourself twice in this quote? Do you know what subjectivity is? You claimed that subjectivity is a fact then went on to put forward two objective absolutes. Smh.

davien: I've never felt any "sweetness of evil" nor love the "flair of doing wrongs"....

This is a lie. But there's nothing I can say or argue about if you just live in denial like this. Foolish denial actually. Any mature human being who says he hasn't ever felt the sweetness of doing wrong is maybe psychotic or a perfect man, like Jesus.
Why would we as humans do wrong collectively and individually time after time even when we know the repercussions of wrong doing if we are not drawn by the pleasures of wrong doing thereof?

davien: The biblical "adam" has nothing to do with morality because it's not based on reality but jewish mythology...

And what is reality?

davien: That is the very basis of christianity,to impose the idea that human beings are inherently evil when in reality we have as much potential to do good and evil....
In christianity a homeless korean kid that steals food to eat,has "sinned" and is supposedly going to hell....is that just?

Nonsense again. I don't need to argue this point with you again of course. Look through the ages of human history and the lives to see if humans have an equal tendency of both sides. Please be realistic and stop spouting idealistic thoughts. The very fact that we choose evil(whether its once in a while or a lifestyle) denotes imperfection

davien: I can see that you have a script to go by,but sadly my question is why a billion generations should pay for one man's mistakes(based on the mythology ofcourse)...

Well, its superficially the same question.(if you don't notice that then sadly we've been wasting our time)

God made it so that the imperfection of countless generations and the judgement of countless sins would be ("unfairly"?) placed on one man who had never done anything wrong: Jesus Christ.
God chose to put creation under a curse (instead of wiping it out in Judgement) because he had me and you in mind. He planned a savior who would vanquish this curse when the time was right.

I have reached the purpose of this thread in this explanation. Unfortunately it was only you who showed any real indulgence. Thank you very much for listening. Feel free to ask more questions.


As for those who think that the evil that humans do won't connect with guilt or judgement of any kind and "humanity is good and only good"(Lol). I wish above all things that you open your eyes to what is happening around you and begin to acknowledge the problem of imperfection and sin before its too late.

davien:
joshthefirst I respect the passion you have for your faith but in plain truth....what would you call a society that imprisons a criminals generation' for a finite crime?....
Is the word "tyrannical" coming to mind?

So I take it you think it isn't fair. It's tyrannical(ignoring the fact that if you believe in subjective morality then you have no right to call another society tyrannical or unfair in their judgements).

But lemme explain it to you, so you don't get a wrong picture. Listen and try to understand. I'm innocently trying to explain something. I'm not being antagonistic here. And I trust you will honestly ask me questions based on your comprehension of the statements I make. Do not be condescending or annoying, or you will be ignored. Thank you.

-Adams sin made us all sinners by "nature" not by "deed". In other words, we're in a prison of "sinful nature". Always tending to rebel and do wrong and always tending to love the flair and rush of the wrong we do, the sweetness of evil. (I'm sure you've felt this before)

-Of course we can still do good, but that doesn't change who we are by nature. Our nature of imperfection is the prison. And because of this nature, we sin and do imperfect things, which bring us condemnation. (I believe this tackles rilwayne's issue)

Note well that I am not trying to make a case for this "unfairness". The very fact of it is still there. I'm just trying to make things plain. So you know what I'm talking about.

In case you don't care for all I've written so far, this is the brunt of it all:
The "unfair" issue is that God made it so that Adams nature and its consequence would pass on to all of his offspring: humanity.
Your question would be: why do I inherit Adams fallen nature and his death and seperation from God when I didn't sin like he did?

Do you want to know why?

plaetton:
I wish I could find words to describe this other than moronic and schizophrenic.

Schizophrenia.
It's hard decide which begets the other,. the deity or the worshipper.

how is this an answer to my question?

gatiano:
According to your personal text, you wrote "GOD is reality" which is wonderfully lovely. why then do you contradict yourself?

God is reality. Yes. But God is Spirit by nature.

The bible clearly states that we're all sinners because Adam sinned The reason you sin is because you're a sinner, not the other way round. You're in a prison of condemnation, and you're trapped in that prison, irrespective of what you do. So irrespective of what we do, we're all damned to die, because of Adams sin. One mans offence condemned his offspring: humanity.

Is that fair?

Romans 5:12 KJV

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
.
.
.
Romans 5:17 KJV

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one;

Tags: plaetton, davien, anyone who wants to join in.




[size=5pt]The purpose of this thread is to explain salvation[/size]

gatiano:
GOD is not a spirit.

He isn't? What is he then? Hocus pocus?

elantraceey:
First get one thing straight , God doesn't hate you and he never will , you're loved with an everlasting love and nothing can seperate you from God's love , he's ready to pick you up when ever you're ready to walk with him but don't let it be too late .

That's right op. God won't condemn you for any faults or failures as long as youre in Jesus. Move on with him and your future is secure. He loves you, and not even the past can sperate you from his love.

Redlyn:
Or I can simply dismiss your idea of reality and no one has to be damned. There is no crime in this finite time on earth that justifies eternal punishment. Unless of course the punisher is evil beyond measure. That's the single thing that ensures I can never be a member of your cult. You call it childish, I call it mercy.

Lol. Dismissing reality doesn't change anything. Note its not my idea. Humans are more than flesh and blood. They are Spirit. Spirits are eternal.

plaetton:
Joshthefirst /lastmessenger,
I am convinced that you are completely nuts, a coockoo bird.
Just reread all the babble above and tell us what you were trying to say.

plaetton/ooman/evil brain.

Read it once more

dalaman:
Meaning God only has mercy on those that believe in the christian religion and not the muslim , hindu or buddist religion.

No. God has mercy on those who rely on his mercy. Are you even trying to understand my words at all or have you closed your mind in dogma? Do you think its religion that saves?

There's no salvation in religion. No mercy either. Look upon the average man and you see a man who thinks his good in life is what will get him on a soft pedestal with God. No. His sin has condemned him already. But Gods great love and mercy and salvation is revealed through the sacrifice of the MAN Jesus. Godbis willing to save all those who trust in his salvation, his Jesus. No one else has or will be eligible to lay down his life as a sacrifice for sin that many of us may obtain Gods favor and love.





Plaetton, Notice how we speak about God now. We aren't even debating his existence anymore. That's self evident. You only seek a god to satisfy your tastes and whims. Unfortunately God will not be made in anyone's image. You must conform to the creator, not the other way around (I'm sure you'd be disappointed if you found a creator who would conform to you, belittling if you ask me). As for you, until you find a desirable god for yourself, you'll rather believe you're the aftermath of a cosmic accident. Quite unfortunate.