RunRyder RC
WATCH
 711 pages [ <<    <     274     ( 275 )     276     NEXT    >> ] 355346 views Topic Closed
Home🌌Off Topics🌌Off Topics News & Politics › God Did Create Mankind.
04-26-2011 09:14 AM  10 years ago
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

MyPosts All Forum Topic
wrong racoon

the same people that made up a global flood that never happened, the same people who said the earth was created in one day, the same people who imply the world is only 6000 years old, the same people who created the abrahamic god.
Funny thing about those issues outhouse. The only person that keeps saying time and time again that I believe that stuff is you. I never said I believe that stuff or even take it literally. Just you.

Want to talk about intellectual dishonesty again?

but facts are facts and that comes from scholars not wiki
Really ??? Scholars ??

What scholars ??? Did they make it through high school ???
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 09:49 AM  10 years ago
sks

rrApprentice

london

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Here is what the Bible says about those who are unbelievers .
Hey, Thomas, you forgot:

33. All believers should dress up in animal costumes to entertain young children on their birthday parties.

34. All ye faithful should star in a production of a major film with gay themes.

making it up as we go along, man, making it up . . . .
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 11:16 AM  10 years ago
Thomas L Erb

rrKey Veteran

Alliance ohio

MyPosts All Forum Topic
scoyle I grew up reading the KJV but i do enjoy the NASB for my studies now. Any of todays accepted versions can be read and used for study. If there is any doubt of what the scripture's meaning is then it is wise to seek other translations and even the original Greek, Latin or Hebrew to verify its meaning with the most accuracy. The Bible must be read literally and understood in the context in which it was written. So many take verses out of context to suit their needs at the moment and do not understand or choose not to express the real meaning of that verse.

Given that time is spent comparing each verse in context and to the original language in which it was written you will find that all acceptable versions will come to the same meanings.

Thats my story and i am sticking to it

This from your link
OCRT Statement of Belief:

We are a multi-faith group. As of 2010-DEC, we consist of one Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist. Thus, the OCRT staff lack agreement on almost all theological matters, such as belief in a supreme being, the nature of God, interpretation of the Bible and other holy texts, whether life after death exists, what form the afterlife may take, etc.
sks, Out, Dusty I believe I have found you a perfect home!!!!!!!!!

you didnt think you were part of a faith group! Guess again!!!
peace and harmony for you all!!!!!!!
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 11:40 AM  10 years ago
sks

rrApprentice

london

MyPosts All Forum Topic
sks, Out, Dusty I believe I have found you a perfect home!!!!!!!!!
Tadzio, you're over stepping your mark. You never had much of a speaking role.

I'd watch out, helicopter's got his eye on you.

SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 04:38 PM  10 years ago
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

MyPosts All Forum Topic
I never said I believe that stuff or even take it literally. Just you.
thats a lie

you believe in creation and that is the same place the story comes from.

you pick and choose gods word as you will heathen lol
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 04:54 PM  10 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
OCRT Statement of Belief:

We are a multi-faith group.
hahahaha

Another bunch of Christians who don't get it. Atheists and agnostics don't have faith IN THE SUPERNATURAL.
The Bible must be read literally and understood in the context in which it was written.
If you want to understand it in the context it was written, you should not be reading it literally. The Bible was never meant to be a reading, it was meant to be a performance, so if you're going to read it, you should read it as if it was a script. That's why it's known as 'scriptures'.

The folk who wrote it by hand, never imagined that one day we would have printing presses and that most everyone would be able to read. Does the Bible mention printing presses? Of course not.

They wrote it for the folk in the days that it was written, in order that preachers could attract the attention of as many folk as possible to the new religion. It wouldn't have been as successful if it sounded drab. The important thing about the Bible is not the story itself, but how it sounds when it's read out loud to an audience.

Anyone who's ever been to a theatre, or even watched a school play, knows that the scripts are written for dramatic effect, and how the Bible is supposed to sound.
Given that time is spent comparing each verse in context and to the original language in which it was written you will find that all acceptable versions will come to the same meanings.
Of course they haven't changed the story, much, but the dramatic effect is no longer there in the newer versions. Just look as far back as the KJ version. Imagine a professional actor/preacher reading it out loud with the intention of captivating the audience.

1:2 The earth had no shape. It was empty. The waters were dark. God’s spirit moved over the waters.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Don't you think then 2nd one would sound much better? It's a shame that the newer translations are written to be easy to read, and so that as many people as possible will be able to understand it, they keep the words short and simple. I suppose it makes sense if it helps with book sales though, since profit is what's most important these days.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 05:04 PM  10 years ago
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

MyPosts All Forum Topic
If you want to understand it in the context it was written, you should not be reading it literally. The Bible was never meant to be a reading, it was meant to be a performance
exactly it was entertainment back then.

it was the best they had, even children would run to the gathering place to get a good seat lol

One has to be really old and dumb as dirt to read the bible literally
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 05:08 PM  10 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
it was the best they had
Three cheers for science.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 05:10 PM  10 years ago
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

MyPosts All Forum Topic
thats a lie
you believe in creation and that is the same place the story comes from.

you pick and choose gods word as you will heathen
There you go again. Tell me what I believe. Once again, I told you I favor Intelligent Design. Not creation. There is a difference. Please get your sh#t together outhouse and try to loosen up a bit on Christianity.. That may be difficult in your hatred, anger filled, and raging arrogant head. Just don't get your panties in a wad:

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same

By: John G. West
Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology
December 1, 2002

Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

In reality, there are a variety of reasons why ID should not be confused with creationism:

1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.

Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.

2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)

3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.

The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM’s "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation…." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.

4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.

Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard’s E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin’s theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group’s "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE’s "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin’s theory of evolution…has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin’s theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.

5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)

Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) For a particularly egregious example of use of this term, see Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by Robert T. Pinnock (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
(2) Richard Ostling, AP Writer, March 14, 2002.
(3) For good introductions to intelligent design theory, see Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996); Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer, Science & Evidence For Design in the Universe (Ignatius, 2000); William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman and Littlefield, 2002); and Unlocking the Mystery of Life video documentary (Illustra Media, 2002).
(4) Carl Wieland, "AiG’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement," August 30, 2002, available at http://www.answersingenesis.org.
(5) Henry M. Morris, "Design is not Enough!", Institute for Creation Research, July 1999, available at: http://www.icr.org/.
(6) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1996), 6.
(7) E.O. Wilson, Consilience (New York: Vintage Books, 1998).
(8) Eugenie Scott, interview with ColdWater Media, September 2002. Courtesy of ColdWater Media.
(9) Phina Borgeson, "Introduction to the Congregational Study Guide for Evolution," National Center for Science Education, 2001, available at http://www.ncseweb.org.
(10) Robert Wright, Time, March 11, 2002.

http://www.discovery.org/a/1329
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 05:18 PM  10 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same

By: John G. West
John G. West of the Discovery Institute, that is, the one that thinks men went riding around on the backs of dinosaurs.

Geez, if only we could edit such rubbish ourselves. Being such a dishonest site though, I'm sure they're only too keen to keep spreading their lies. Great choice of source for info. Do you really think it's in the least bit credible?

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 05:31 PM  10 years ago
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

MyPosts All Forum Topic
John G. West of the Discovery Institute, that is, the one that thinks men went riding around on the backs of dinosaurs.
There are plenty of references there Dusty if you don't like that author. Thats why I included them in that post. He's not the only one. You guys accuse us of being uneducated ignorant's all the time. But, you all show the same traits yourselves.

You atheist anger filled, hate filled, raging arrogant and nasty di#k heads ought to loosen up a bit and try to not get your panties in a wad.

Its certainly not difficult to understand why atheists are the single most despised group of people in the USA. The primary reasons for that are clearly on display here on RR on a hourly/daily basis.

SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 05:50 PM  10 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
You atheist anger filled, hate filled, raging arrogant and nasty di#k heads ought to loosen up a bit and try to not get your panties in a wad on a hourly/daily basis.
Try to chill out.

Did you even look at the references? Do you consider answeringingenesis.com to be a reliable source? Many of the references are books, and if we don't have all of those books, how are we supposed to check? Even at best, if the actual words are accurate, they could be taken completely out of context. Remember the example I gave in the Afghanistan thread about taking things out of context? Taking ''kill the infidel'' out of context with the phrase ''you may only kill the infidel in self defence'', changes the meaning entirely, and is exactly what the anti-Islam sites do, even though they can say that the Quran is their reference.

You expect us to believe, that a site which promotes the idea of men riding around on dinosaurs, would not be likely to do the same? How can you possibly trust such a site as a source of reference?

Now if it was a major site that could be edited, the chances are that people who do have each of those books, would come across that information at some point in time. Therefore if it was wrong, it would easily be edited to correct it.

In the case with your creationists site though, they obviously have a vested financial interest in telling you what they want you to believe.

Given all of this, remembering of course that we don't trust what they say in the first place regarding men riding dinosaurs, how can you possibly trust anything else that they might say?

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 05:52 PM  10 years ago
sks

rrApprentice

london

MyPosts All Forum Topic
One has to be really old and dumb as dirt to read the bible literally
that means Dennis, Grey and helicopter are in good company then.
You atheist anger filled, hate filled, raging arrogant and nasty di#k heads ought to loosen up a bit and try to not get your panties in a wad.
you shouldn't talk about yourself too much, Dennis. Doesn't suit yer.

Don't want to soil that raccoon costume now, do we?
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 05:57 PM  10 years ago
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Did you even look at the references? Do you consider answeringingenesis.com to be a reliable source? Many of the references are books, and if we don't have all of those books, how are we supposed to check?
I really don't care Dusty. Thats up to you. The information was put there to keep tirds like you atheists from misleading others into your fold of anger, hatred, and raging arrogance.

You know full well there are plenty of other sources out there on the same subject. I just showed one. Try to show at least an average level of honesty and at least some level of tolerance please.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 06:07 PM  10 years ago
sks

rrApprentice

london

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The information was put there to keep tirds like you atheists from misleading others into your fold of anger, hatred, and raging arrogance.
it's got nothing to do with anger, rage or arrogance.

it's called making fun of the moronic religious.

now, where's the tranquilizer gun? I feel like darting a furry pollen sniffing, rehab refusing, flower abusing raccoon nowabouts.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 06:17 PM  10 years ago
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

MyPosts All Forum Topic
In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case
there are no merits to ID or creation

and they are one in the same

dusty is right John G. West is a complete idiot
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 06:19 PM  10 years ago
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

MyPosts All Forum Topic
intelligent design is based on science
no its not racoon

back your statement instead of the old copy and paste junk your used to
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 06:23 PM  10 years ago
outhouse

rrVeteran

auburn ca

MyPosts All Forum Topic
There are plenty of references there Dusty if you don't like that author. Thats why I included them in that post. He's not the only one. You guys accuse us of being uneducated ignorant's all the time. But, you all show the same traits yourselves.
going to disovery institute is not educating oneself, they are in a losing struggle to keep creation in schools by changing the name to ID, they still fight. and they still fail.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 06:24 PM  10 years ago
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

MyPosts All Forum Topic
dusty is right John G. West is a complete idiot
Of course he is. He don't have the same opinions as you.

SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
04-26-2011 06:27 PM  10 years ago
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

MyPosts All Forum Topic
going to disovery institute is not educating oneself, they are in a losing struggle to keep creation in schools by changing the name to ID, they still fight. and they still fail.
Just so that others have a better opportunity to decide for themselves instead of taking it from a very nasty little atheist high school drop out:

http://www.discovery.org/
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
WATCH
 711 pages [ <<    <     274     ( 275 )     276     NEXT    >> ] 355346 views Topic Closed
Home🌌Off Topics🌌Off Topics News & Politics › God Did Create Mankind.
Print TOPIC

 30  Topic Subscribe

Monday, September 20 - 9:51 am - Copyright © 2000-2021 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online