As I said, it doesnt bother me, although I am concerned for everyone that does not accept the Lord's grace...as I dont want anyone to end up where they are choosing to go. If I am compelled to do anything, it is that the Lord has told me and every other believer that we are to give an answer, to give the truth. It is like planting seeds. we are not responsible for those seeds, for their growth, for their death. All we are to do is plant. Or here's another analogy...there are some that believe the Holocaust did not happen. For those of us that havent lost a complete grasp of reality, we know it did happen. So, when this person says "it didnt happen" or "Did it happen?", to tell that person the truth is not compelling them to accept anything. it is just presenting the facts.


Because I now know where the wide path of life leads. Because I do care where you end up, WAT. To not care, would be evil.


When I speak of "excuse," I am speaking of when an unbeliever stands before Jesus upon their death...they will be without excuse. They may say "I didnt know" or "I lived a good life" or "I thought there was another way", etc. But all Jesus will say is "I never knew you." God's word and Jesus' affirmation of His word speaks to the fact that there is only one way. Sure, there are many choices we can take in life. But only one of them leads to God. All of the rest lead to a different place.

I was involved in a very interesting study recently about what He!! is like. And this pastor brought up the fact that the knashing of teeth and the like is not necessarily due to pain. A closer look at scripture reveals that the people in He!! will be doing so out of anger. How dare God send me here...I was a good person! And they dont realize (or dont want to) that they chose to go there.


We do live in religious liberty. Just as we live in a politically free society. But to take it to that venue for a minute...I believe liberals are as wrong as can be on almost every position they take. And when they present their views, I do tell them they are wrong...and I show them what I believe to be the facts and the right way. for example...this whole FALSE notion that our Constitution was designed to be a living document. Hogwash! The Founders were quite clear that it was NOT to be a living document. But dont bring facts in when talking to a liberal person that believes in this living document stuff.

But to show liberals the errors of their ways is NOT trying to push them into anything. They can believe in a living document all they want. The person that doesnt believe in the Holocaust is free to believe that all they want. Nowhere have I seen anyone on here have the ability to stop a person from doing so. On either side of the argument.


I am just presenting the facts. And as more become available, then the case for Scritpure and for God becomes more compelling. This lady I know was a victim of the Nazis. She doesnt need anyone to prove that the Holocaust existed. But she will also go to this person who deies the Holocaust and tell them the facts, talk about the real people that she knew that died in those death camps. Will she convince that person? Maybe. Maybe not. But not to say anything, not to present the facts, allows the lie to continue. And spread. If she says nothing, then others around the person denying this event, may begin to say "well, maybe it didnt happen."

And the same goes with God. Man from the beginning has denied God. All of us! I have. You have. But one day when I was 15, I was brought face-to-face with Him. I could no longer deny, and be intellectually honest with myself. I had a choice to make...and was free to make it. I could continue to live my life as if He didnt exist, even with the facts in front of me. Even with His direct intervention into my life. Or, I could accept the facts in front of me and begin to learn more about this person. Of course, as you know, I chose the latter.

I am not about convincing anyone to follow Jesus. I know FH isnt either. As Christians, we know that isnt our job...and we really do not have the power to do so. I know that if I try to ram God down someone's throat, what I may get is someone that goes the opposite direction because of me. And I dont want to end up being anywhere responsible for them ending up where they will end up.

So, I present the facts. I share what I know. I tell you and anyone else I meet of this Man that I know and what He has done in my life. And I share His promises to you.

Then, the choice is yours. And when you make the choice, then when you arrive in front of Jesus, there will be no excuses. You made the choice. You had the facts. And you either accepted or denied. And that will be between you and Him.

I of course, have no play in that. Will I be sad? Sure!! I like you WAT. I dont WANT to see you end up there. But can I force you to accept the truth? Nope. Even God doesnt do that. He gives you freewill.

I hope that explains things!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

In His arms.

Didnt know that place was there! Thanks for the info!

In His arms.

((( NBII )))

you go girl !

Pep

Alan.... AN.. I will let your posts speak for themselves. There is no reason to continue this debate with you. AN... you should be ashamed of yourself.... not for inviting Alan... he does add to the discussion... but because you failed to identify him as someone invited here and not someone dealing with infidelity... and 99.999 % of people that come to this site are dealing with some issue revolving around infidelity. You both opened the door to assumptions about his reasons for being here and BOTH failed to address that. Now Alan throws around empty arguments about how the assumptions are typical of FC...
I would have asked him the same question if we had a discussion of Ford vs. Chevy. The both of you are beyond ridiculous. And Alan... you refuted the arguments in your own mind... not to my satisfaction.
I wish you both well in your academic attempts to undermine religion. AN... unfortunately the JW won. And that is a shame. You gave them too much power then and now.

mkeverydaycnt said:


That is the wisest course, given that you have no facts to back up your silly claims.

What is so typical here is that it was two of your Fundamentalist buddies, bigkahuna and ForeverHers, who initiated the disrespectful tones by posting ad hominens. You obviously approved. Then you people have the nerve to scream bloody murder when you get it thrown back at you.


Obviously it bothers you that you did not have details of someone's background to use against him. Obviously you cannot deal with factual arguments, but prefer ad hominems. Your continued harping on this -- without given actual reasons why a poster's background is relevant to discussions on creation/evolution -- proves my point.


Making unwarranted assumptions is extremely stupid. Get your facts straight, then you can speak with authority. You've made a fool of yourself. And that irritates you.


Hardly empty. I've seen exactly this technique used by various Fundamentalists for years. I speak from experience. I could post some recent ad hominem arguments from a Jehovah's Witness apologist and you'd hardly be able to tell the difference between what this moron writes and what you, bigkahuna and ForeverHers have written.


Except that you most likely would have accompanied such a question with comments relevant to the Ford vs. Chevy discussion.


Well of course not to your satisfaction! To you Fundamentalists, evidence is irrelevant, because your faith determines what evidence means to you.


Actually, when I have the time, I do whatever I can to undermine that destructive cult. Over the years I've managed to influence hundreds, if not thousands, of JWs to quit. I'm proud of that, and it shows they have no power over me.

AlanF

I read page one and that's about as far as I will go. Interesting topic though, as always.

I did find this comment a bit disrespectful and rather absurd though.

[/quote]The scientific community doesn't bother with this notion of a VERY young (brand new, really) Earth because it's such an unreasonable concept in the face of evidence 2 the contrary that it's utterly laughable. And it's pointless 2 argue with those who still insist it's the case and that all the scientific evidence and discoveries are wrong. [/quote]

Only a closed mind laughs away something that it does not understand. In fact, the scientific community is most diligent in trying to understand everything there is to know about the possibility of creation. Scientist will never prove evolution if they cannot disrprove creation.

Hence, evolution is still but a theory.

Alan... and what claims would these be??? I am a Christian... but I am a Christian that believes the Earth to be very old... millions of years old....so, you made assumptions about me... yet, I can tell you that my assumptions about you were based on rational thought that you still cannot see because your head is squarely up your [censored].



Again, an assumption on your part. I wanted to know what brought you to an infidelity FORUM... not the thread Alan... the forum... because the VAST amjority of new people that show up here need immediate help. And most BS are quick to point out that they are indeed a BS... some WS are less able to do so at first... hence the rational assumption. And Alan... if you can't get that point.. then you are showing your short comings.




Alan... what you see as evidence, I see as opinion. You just seem to think your "facts" are the guiding light. I worked in a field where facts were of the most importance Alan... I frequently saw that what one person believed to be fact another would call fiction. The truth Alan is that which corresponds to fact... so, you see a different truth based on your interpretation of things... your facts.



Sounds like you have found your calling. The comment talking about JW winning was directed at AN... that English was clear and I never said they had power over you Alan.



Your opinion Alan... and you are welcome to it... but IMHO.. I think AN and by proxy you have been the fools here. AN for not having the ability to stand on her own reasoning to discuss this topic and you for coming here and acting like some type of authority on this topic.

Once again, all return to their corners, having added nothing but personal attacks and ranting.

Except NBII, who has excellent points, and MM who, although I disagree with him, is respectful and clear on his points, and attacks no one while making them. MM, I like you.

Hey Alan, have you read any of the links I posted?

No biblical scholar here ALAN but even I can SEE the holes in the above offered "proof".

Jesus stood a mile a way and said to his disciples "Do you SEE all these things?" and "not one stone here will be left on another". I can infer that he was referring to the SEEN stones and not the remaining foundation. I think it's pretty strong argument that within a small amount of time if the disciples went back to that exact position in 70AD they would SEE exactly the destruction Jesus prophesized. Additionally, when destroying a building exactly how does one "throw down" underground foundation rocks. The term "throw down" has to be an indication that Jesus was referring to the rocks above ground only.

I think I see what you are trying to do though. Take the Fundamentalists down by using their "literalness" of the Bible against them. "not one stone" means "not one stone"...but you conveniently left off was that Jesus may* have been specifically referring only to the "stones" seen above ground from over a mile away. It is in fact merely a quibble. Literally, the scripture holds up and I didn't even need 4,000 books to do this. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Oh, the comforts of Faith.

*Perhaps I say "may" is a problem cause I suppose a strict Fundamentalist would say "must"...I'm just a Born Again Methodist here learning immensely from FH and Mortarman...I have enjoyed this thread...thank you ALL).

Another way to look at this. Wouldn't it be nice if the US could declare that Osama failed in his mission to destroy the World Trade Center simply because some beams and foundations walls remained??? None of us would even consider making such a statement today. However, imagine 2000 years from now someone finding a long lost photo of a couple of beams still standing and offering THAT as proof that the Osama was a liar if it was written that he said "No beams shall remain intact". I realize this is a stretch of an argument but none of us TODAY could proclaim that really Osama's figurative prediction of utter destruction was not FULLY accomplished. [Query?...when was this scripture in question considered written???]

Finally, the prophecy may yet to be completely fulfilled. Perhaps something sooner or later, besides simple erosion, will in fact, carry out the utter and complete destruction of the Temple and it's still remaining foundation.

Finally, refuting the arguments of Christians, including Fundalmentalists, by indicating their words are similiar to the teachings and/or rhetoric of the JW's does not constitute an argument. JW's are simply wrong which doesn't be extension prove Christians/Fundamentalist are too.

We are to taught/advised to believe with a child-like faith. We are not required to undertake these mental exercises lest we be fools. I have hope that your upbringing will not forever preclude you from acquiring such child-like faith. I understand and see/feel your anger.

Sing along with me...."God said it, I believe it, that settles it...whatever the Lord says is true"

Mr. Wondering

Sorry, that's a strawman. I have never stated or implied that Jesus' prophecy referred only to the inner Temple building. It was a plural reference. Jesus spoke of all the buildings to which His disciples brought His attention. Hence Jesus' prophecy speaks of the plural buildings, not the singular Temple Mount.

Jesus did not prophesy that the Temple Mount would be entirely destroyed. He prophesied that all the buildings on the Temple Mount would be destroyed.

Your own cite makes clear the distinction -
It was that complex of buildings that Jesus' disciples drew His attention to, and that complex of buildings is what Jesus referred to in the plural and prophesied would be destroyed, not the large walls surrounding it. Your quote makes it clear that Jesus and His disciples were discussing, not the entire Temple Mount, but to the buildings on it.

Suppose I was flying out of New York on September 10. My seatmate says to me, "Look at those two towers of the World Trade Center."

I respond, "Those towers are going to be destroyed by planes hitting them."

The prophecy would not be invalid if, on September 12, the entire island of Manhattan did not sink under the sea.

Regards,
rs0522

Anyname – the following is a review and comments regarding your posts and AlanF.


From Anyname post of 06/28/06 at 7:12 AM



From Anyname on 6/28/06 at 08:55 AM



MY response to Anyname regarding AlanF’s postings. 06/28/06 at 08:56 AM



AlanF’s response to meverydaycnt’s post on 06/29/06 at 12:40 PM


[color:"blue"] (A totally evasive answer that refused to plainly state WHY he is posting)[/color]



MY followup post to AlanF on 06/29/06 at 12:55 PM



[color:"blue"] Again Alan evaded a direct and simple answer to the question. [/color]



Anyname’s post to mkeverydaycnt of 06/30/06 at 08:30 AM




Anyname – This post, had it been posted before or immediately after Alan’s arrival here, could have done much to answer the question and not have people speculating about him, since he refused to answer the simplest of questions as to “why” and “how” he showed up here, in all of “cyberspace.”

[color:"blue"] (My “speculation” was proven to be fact by your above post) Emphasis added to your post for specific highlight of the relevant admission and points. [/color]

Instead, both you and Alan refused a direct response and then Alan proceeded to launch attacks on people for making “incorrect” assumptions.

You stated in the first post above; “We do not know AlanF's situation.” Obviously “we” did not. However both YOU and Alan did.

You may have asked him to participate in a discussion of evolutionism and creationism, but he chose as his “opening statement” a salvo directly attacking Jesus Christ as a “liar.”
Then in subsequent postings he continued his Theological attacks by trying to “label” some posters as “Fundamental Christians” as some pejorative term to simply “dismiss” them from any discussion as being “meaningless and mindless.” He chose to direct his attack to an attack on Christian Theology and to engage in personal attacks on posters, not Science, in direct opposition to the intent and design of this thread. It’s interesting that he did the very same thing he accused me, and others, of doing, jumping to conclusions and making incorrect assumptions about MY position and belief regarding the mountains. So it would seem that what he “objects to” in others is “perfectly okay” for himself to employ. I will address Alan directly, but it would seem that you might want to consider whether or not you owe the “board” an apology for appearing to be trying to feign ignorance of Alan, why he was here, and what his motivations in posting are.

Since you know Alan, you also know of his belief in evolution and not creation. So your “appeal” to being interested in the topic and in discussing it seems hollow. However, hopefully the discussion may be of interest to you and may even provide you with information or “another way” to evaluate the possibility of a “creator” as opposed to random, mindless molecules.



Asking for an opinion? Better than some, far short of others....A man's got to know his limitations. I wonder if Alan does, because his opinion of me doesn't concern me. Besides, he's already stated what his opinion is of "Fundamental Christians," as he likes to label them in his mind.

I'm wondering if the real interest is in a "debate" between Alan and me. I am fairly good at debating (or so the awards seem to say), but debating doesn't lend itself well to a discussion, which IS what the intent of this thread is.

AlanF, I'm going to ask you to stop with the attacks on Jesus at this point, on this thread. You asked ME about the Wailing Wall and accused Jesus of being a liar. I WILL respond when I have time, but I WILL also create a separate thread at that time for THAT discussion. This thread is NOT a theological thread. It is for a discussion of the Models of Origins called the Evolution Model and the Creation Model. From those Models the interpretations of the world around us are examined. I would caution you to not jump to erroneous assumptions about what I believe with respect to things like the Mountains, when all I have done to date is to ask someone else for THEIR explanation of how the fossils (and sedimentary rock that contain them) came to be "so high up."

I DO appreciate, however, your tacit admission that the mountains were NOT "all that high" in the past and WERE capable (obviously from the presence of fossils and sedimentary rock) of being MUCH lower AND of being covered by water. More on that later.

:::::::::Alan.... AN.. I will let your posts speak for themselves. There is no reason to continue this debate with you.

MEDC, there is no debate to continue. FH's has gone, sorry that he started the thread in the first place. I already explained to you honestly why I didn't introduce Alan at first.


:::AN... you should be ashamed of yourself.... not for inviting Alan... he does add to the discussion... but because you failed to identify him as someone invited here and not someone dealing with infidelity... and 99.999 % of people that come to this site are dealing with some issue revolving around infidelity.

I am ashamed of myself for wasting time. Especially the last post I wrote to you at midnight last nite which explained my position in a kind and open manner. I misjudged you to be a fair man. Clearly no matter how much I grovel to you, you go on barking that I failed to observe the rules that you introduced after the game started. Have you noticed that you are the only one worried about my not introducing Alan? Everyone else is grown up enough to accept that I brought a friend along who knew a lot more than I did about this subject as I was tired of not being able to answer the scientific information that was being brought into disrepute.


::::You both opened the door to assumptions about his reasons for being here and BOTH failed to address that.

But it was just a discussion. It's not something to "be ashamed of", on the scale of what we read about on this site. You make me sound like some kind of crazed lunatic. All I did was invite an expert to address the opposing POV. That's what really upsets you isn't it? You didn't want anyone with any knowledge of the subject presenting counter arguments. You wanted it all your own way or at least to only have the betrayed or wayward people posting, with their limited knowledge of the subject.

:::::The both of you are beyond ridiculous.

Like I said: read my previous post and note how respectfully I replied to you. Thank you for showing me that you are incapable of processing replies that treat you with respect.

::::I wish you both well in your academic attempts to undermine religion.

Wow, that's very generous under the circumstanceds. May I return the compliment by wishing you well in your non academic attempts to support creation.


::::AN... unfortunately the JW won. And that is a shame. You gave them too much power then and now.

I lost all my family - including 3 siblings who won't associate with me (won't even have a coffee with me). And all my relatives are JWs and they won't talk to me. This was in 1980. I have been shunned by my family all these years for daring to leave the JWs. My experience is that people get pretty sh*tty if you don't agree with them. And come to think of it, if the Christians involved in this debate had nothing to fear they would not be bothered about why Alan is here and why I delayed introducing him. They would be comfortable in their superior knowledge. Clearly they are not.

AN

AN... you are clearly a bit off in your thinking.

FH's I apologise for assuming you had left this thread. I apologise for not introducing Alan initially. I was wrong not to. I didn't think it mattered why he was posting but I can see that it does matter to more than one person. I thought the message was more important than the messenger. I still do but as others have had so much trouble with it then I wish I had introduced Alan as one of my friends in apostasy from the JWs. Now I am made look like some kind of evil person for sneaking in a 'person of my ilk' into the discussion without identifying him as someone I called upon to boost my poor knowledge of the subject.

I already said this once FH but it was in fact a compliment to you that I considered you worthy of debating with someone of Alan's knowledge. I think you have the brains to see that it a genuine statement.

I am pulling out of this discussion now anyway. I'm off to Europe the day after next and I've got a million things to prepare.

kind regards
Marilyn

Hi AlanF,

I know several have DJ'd. If you make your behaviour contingent upon anyone else's, you have just given away your power. This is directly relevant to MBing, the purpose of this site.

AN,
Glad you, WAT and your son cleared that up. Yes, my point was that 'evolution' does not make any predictions or statements about how things with genetic sequences got here. There may be supported theories in chemistry, physics etc that predict that... I am not an organic chemist and wouldn't know. They are not part of the theory of evolution.

Dr. Smur - just a quick note to let you know that I have not forgotten your request regarding the Models. I've been extremely busy at work and at home lately and have not had the time for much "MBing," or for much typing for that matter. I'm going to see if perhaps on Tuesday I can set aside the time to type up the information you wanted, so if you'll bear with me a little longer I'll get to that.

While you are waiting on that information, perhaps you could expand a little on your statement to Anyname.

"Yes, my point was that 'evolution' does not make any predictions or statements about how things with genetic sequences got here."

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding or a difference of definition in the term "evolution." Evolution (as a theory or model depending upon what someone wants to call it) makes several predictions and statements about how things with genetic sequences "got here." Everything "began" from some "lucky happenstance" of nature that gave rise to life from non-life, albeit in the simplest possible sense. That initial "lifeform" somehow increased in genetic complexity and increased the informational content all through the primary processes of mutation and natural selection (in large part 'trial and error' over millenia upon millenia, giving rise to genetically different "kinds" of organisms that are incapable of interbreeding. This is the "theory" and "predicition" of evolution in it's most basic sense, "molecules to man."

Obviously, Biology really doesn't deal with the "Origins" of life, just the living things after it's creation by act of a creator or by lucky happenstance of nature. But after that, Biology DOES deal with predictions and/or statements about HOW things things with genetic sequences got here within the framework (usually) of the "evolution" of living things. Comparative Anatomy, to name just one discipline, relies heavily upon the "tree of life" to explain the various lifeforms, living and extinct.

So I would really appreciate knowing what you meant by your statement to Anyname to avoid misunderstandings.

Respectfully,
FH

Marilyn - Apologies accepted. Understand that Alan himself could have stopped all this before it started to "get out of hand" by simply stating why he was here and how he came to be here. But he left you "twisting in the wind" for some childish reason I don't understand. So consider the issue closed. You are NOT an "evil person."




I am flattered by your statement, but you must understand that I am not trying to "debate" anyone. Debating and discussing are two very different things. Whether or not I am worthy of your assessment of my "brains" will be in the eyes of each individual. WAT, for example, already considers me an idiot for my belief in creation, but I am confident in my Lord and in His revealed Word. So "brain" or "idiot" or "moron" or any of a multitude of descriptive words, I can live with any appelation. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your assessment and your motivation for asking Alan to participate. You cannot control his behavior and are not responsible for it.

Have a safe trip and stop back in here when you have the time.

Hi FH,

thats ok, take your time.



There may be.
A definition of evolution that you would find in a standard biology textbook, is :
"a change in the gene pool of a population over time",
with a gene being a unit of DNA that codes for a characteristic, and a gene pool being the set of all of the genes in a species or in a population.

There may be models in organic chemistry or physics that predict the formation of RNA from its components. They are not evolution. **Just to check, I looked it up for you. The theory of how RNA came about is called 'abiogenesis'. I know nothing about it so can't comment.**



Yes, that is evolution. They are other mechanisms besides mutation and natural selection that cause changes to gene pool - there is also genetic drift, recombination, lateral gene transfer and gene flow.

About 'increased in complexity'... I would say yes and no. Some single-celled organisms have 100 times larger genomes than humans. Does this make them more complex? I don't know. I guess it depends how you define 'complex'. Also 'trial and error'... again, I would say, it depends. Natural selection is not random, its ordered based on the differential reproductive success of different genetic variants in a particular place and time, which are for good reasons.



Yes, I agree. Not only comparative anatomy - evolution is the cornerstone of almost all modern biology.

AlanF - Returning to your initial post, I am moving that discussion, should you care to participate, to a separate thread where we can discuss religion and theology. This thread is for a discussion of Evolution and Creation as Models for origins and life, as well as other aspects of Science.