*******************************************************************************************************************
TRUTH:
"Have No Fellowship With the Unfruitful Works of Darkness, But Rather EXPOSE Them!" ~ GOD, Ephesians 5:11

Got PROOF? The police in Colorado know about serial child killers! Go to www.PoliceRecordingsKekoas.com for the TRUTH!

July 17, 2006

WORDS TO THE WISE: Inside the Debased Mind of a FOOL

I have been following the continuing debate on Creation vs. Evolution between a wise Christian woman named Christine from Talk Wisdom and a hardened FOOL named Ubersehen.

Ubersehen has demonstrated his utter FOOLISHNESS several times throughout this debate, but particularly when he snipped back at Christine with these comments after she quoted a Bible verse accusing another FOOL named Phronk of having a reprobate mind because he cannot see the errors of his ways (much like our pal Ubersehen here). *Read => Romans 1:20-28

"Is citing scripture supposed to prove anything, Christine?"

"It's a curious phenomenon I've noticed that those who believe in biblical inerrancy seem to feel that scripture is somehow convincing on its own merits to anyone that doesn't already agree. "

The TRUTH is true, whether someone agrees with it or not.

Phronk and Uber have already been given over to a debased mind and exchanged the TRUTH of God for a lie. They are futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts are already darkened. For since the creation of the world God's invisible attributes are clearly seen and understood so that they are without excuse. Professing to be wise, they have become FOOLS.

The Bible declares that the FOOL says in his heart "there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).

Here are a few more Words of Wisdom from the Bible about FOOLS: (Of course this won't "prove" anything to Uber and Phronk because they don't agree with Scripture or believe in God.)

Book of Proverbs:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; FOOLS despise wisdom and instruction. – vs. 1:7

The lips of the righteous feed many; But FOOLS die for lack of understanding. – vs. 10:21

The way of a FOOL is right in his own eyes; But a wise man is he who listens to counsel. – vs. 12:15

He who walks with wise men will be wise; But the companion of FOOLS will suffer harm. – vs. 13:20

FOOLS mock at sin: But among the upright there is good will. – vs. 14:9

A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil; But a FOOL is arrogant and careless. – vs. 14:16

Wisdom rests in the heart of one who has understanding; But in the hearts of FOOLS it is made known. – vs. 14:33

A FOOL does not delight in understanding; But only in revealing his own mind. – vs. 18:2

A FOOL's mouth is his ruin; And his lips are the snare of his soul. – vs. 18:7

The FOOLISHNESS of man ruins his way; And his heart rages against the LORD. – vs. 19:3

Do not speak in the hearing of a FOOL; For he will despise the wisdom of your words. – vs. 23:9

Like a dog that returns to its vomit, is a FOOL who repeats his folly. - vs. 26:11

He who trusts in his own heart is a FOOL; But he who walks wisely will be delivered. – vs. 28:26

When a wise man has a controversy with a FOOLISH man, the FOOLISH man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest. – vs. 29:9

===================

Christine said it best here: "No matter how many debates and conversations that I have with Darwinists I find such conversations often turn out fruitless. Why? Because they think higher of themselves and their science than they do of God."

Why is it fruitless? Simple - Because they are FOOLS!

*Read Christine's latest post here ==> Debate? Or Talking Past Each Other?

**Special thanks to another woman with Godly wisdom named Tressa who has been a great encouragement to me and she inspired me to write this post.

32 comments:

  1. The reason that there is no way to debate the issue is because neither group will accept the others fact base. For the Darwinists it is the various studies and findings of scientists and archeologists. For the Creationists it is the Bible.

    Since neither will budge from their acceptence of their own source, there will never be a common ground. It is best to accept that and change topics, because otherwise there is a lot of noise and very little change.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hmmm... science with facts or the Bible with "stories"... that's a tough one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dani, what do you do about the fact that most JudeoChristian traditions, including Islam, believe the exact same thing as far as the "fool" clause? The Torah and the Quran both say the same things about Christians like yourself- how are you certain the Bible is more legitimate than those texts since they're all religions based on the same pretexts?

    Thanks for your answers!

    ReplyDelete
  4. You were nominated for a RFS Blog Award! Go get the button and tell all your friends to vote for you!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm out. This has come down to logic versus blind faith. Since conversation and debate rely on logic, there is no point in entering into one with people who reject it.

    Futhermore, it is obvious that Dani does not listen to a word that anyone says. We've gotten into a cycle that goes something like this:

    Dani: "X is true!"

    Logic: "X is not true. Here are reasons why X is not true. X is actually logically impossible. There is also a plethora of evidence showing that X is not true."

    Dani: "X = DEATH. What about Y?"

    Logic: "Please don't change the subject. What is wrong with my contention that X is not true?"

    Dani: "X is true because X is true. Also, I can't imagine X not being true, therefore X is true."

    Logic: "That makes no sense. You have committed several logical fallacies."

    Dani: "X = TRUTH, the bible says you're a FOOL hardnened heart willfully ignorant constant controversy homo TRUTH FOOL etc. Have you considered Z?"

    Logic: "You still haven't said anything coherent about X."

    Dani disappears. Two weeks later, a new post is put up:

    Dani: "X is true."

    Rinse, repeat.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And just to provide one example: Dani (and others) frequently says that evolution's position is that "humans came about through pure chance". This has been refuted many times as a straw man that nobody actually believes. It reflects a deep misunderstanding of what evolution is.

    Yet it keeps coming up.

    I don't have time to keep repeating myself, but I hope others do (because I do still feel that there is hope for Dani, maybe). Maybe one day it'll click.

    ReplyDelete
  7. An excellent summary, Phronk.

    Parrallax,

    The reason that there is no way to debate the issue is because neither group will accept the others fact base. For the Darwinists it is the various studies and findings of scientists and archeologists. For the Creationists it is the Bible.

    This is part of it, but there is another element to it, as well. Creationism and Intelligent Design both frequently purport to possess scientific evidence supporting either (a) the existence of the supernatural/god or more frequently (b) debilitating criticism of evolution. As such, they have knowingly ventured into the realm of scientific research and are subject to the rules inherent in its methods.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is almost impossible to have this debate. Although there are those who will intelligently discuss the topic, as is the case at another blog I visited with the same topic of debate going on, the darwinists there are at least respectful unlike here where Foolish mocking comes from the heart of those who walk in their own knowledge.

    Those who love this world its foolish ways will have an eye opening experience at death.

    Dani and Christine you are brave in taking on such fools and their ideals.... I've cast my pearls but I won't anymore... these people here refuse to debate, they only mock!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dani and Christine you are brave in taking on such fools

    "Bravery" from the other side of a computer monitor is not much in the way of bravery. If anything, the internet provides us all with the means to spread our message free of any real and tangible repercussions. Thus, if anything, we are all cowards.

    ReplyDelete
  10. P.S.

    KC,

    Answer me this:

    1. Does lying and stealing constitute an intelligent discussion?

    2. Does knowingly repeating scientifically refuted information constitute a debate?

    I'm interested to hear your take on this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You're right KC, it's been reduced to mocking. Like calling people fools (er, sorry, FOOLS), and intentionally misrepresenting the position they are debating against.

    Wait, you said the "darwinists" are the ones doing the mocking? Huh? Are we seeing the same "debate" here?

    ReplyDelete
  12. uber asks 2. Does knowingly repeating scientifically refuted information constitute a debate?

    let me ask you Uber, Does knowingly repeating what God has said, refuted, given you direction on, constitute a debate, or an futile effort in casting pearls before a swine?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1. Does lying and stealing constitute an intelligent discussion?

    Depends on your defintion of intelligent there Uber.

    Does talking about Your opinions relabeld as Fact, constitute an intelligent discussion?

    I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yeah, when you reduce any kind of discussion to a sophomoric level of name-calling and mocking, the point of the discussion itself becomes meaningless...especially in debates/discussions such az this...
    One can be a "creationist advocate" or an "evolutionist proponent"...and either one's "OK"...certainly not serious enuff to reduce either party away from the purpose of communication..which iz simply, "understanding"...
    If either faction actually KNEW the TRUTH..Would they even bother to respond?....
    IMHO, I don't think so..and I don't think so becuz REALLY "Knowing the Truth" puts one inna Non-negotiable stance of what the "Truth" iz...and ifya lower yourself to the level of negotiating with trash...the only result you can hope for iz diminishing your OWN value...

    It's kinda like a guy arm- wrasslin' a woman...Dude...you ain't gonna WIN that contest...Jus' sayin'..

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Dani and Christine you are brave in taking on such fools and their ideals.... I've cast my pearls but I won't anymore... these people here refuse to debate, they only mock!"

    What are you talking about? I raised perfectly legitimate points!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Vile Blasphemer – You asked:

    What do you do about the fact that most JudeoChristian traditions, including Islam, believe the exact same thing as far as the "fool" clause?
    The Torah and the Quran both say the same things about Christians like yourself- how are you certain the Bible is more legitimate than those texts since they're all religions based on the same pretexts?


    Well, The Torah is part of the Bible that I believe in so I’m not sure what your point is with that? The Quran on the other hand, may be based on the same pretexts, but it fails to make one critical claim within the text which is great reason not to believe. I don’t know what “fool clauses” you are referring to, but the Quran is false so it means nothing to me.

    Jesus Christ made several outrageous claims about Himself and His divinity – saying “I am the way, the Truth and the Life.” Also, He died for our sins and rose from the dead which is a lot more than I can say for the prophet Muhammad who happens to still be buried in the ground. Muhammad says, “kill for me, so you can be in paradise with some virgins.” Jesus said, “I died for you, so you may have eternal life.”

    The God of the Bible has the authority over all of life and if you don't believe in Him you are a FOOL!

    You can read these two articles of mine for further claification if you want:

    - Jesus: A Delusional Schizophrenic or God Himself?

    - "How Do You Know if the Bible is 100% Accurate?"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Phronk – Here you go, buddy:

    Logic: "SIN = DEATH."

    So - What about Y?

    What is wrong with my contention that X is not true?

    It’s based on your own understanding and you have proven yourself to be wrong.

    Logic: "X = TRUTH, the bible says you're a FOOL hardened heart willfully ignorant constant controversy homo TRUTH FOOL etc. Have you considered Z?"

    Yes, I have considered Z! And Z = LIES.

    X = TRUTH = GOD.

    Any Questions? Rinse, repeat.

    It’s not that I haven't said anything coherent about X, it’s that you haven't understood anything coherent about X because you have a debased mind and are hardened to the Truth.

    What is the point of proving evolution again? I forgot.

    I do still feel that there is hope for Dani, maybe. Maybe one day it'll click.

    Hope for what? Maybe what will click?

    Hope that I will crawl back down the evolutionary chain, reduce myself to moral relativity and end up like you and your monkey pals? No thanks. No need to repeat yourself - I'm not listening anyway!

    --------------------

    KC – I wouldn’t say that I am brave – just a devoted fan of the Truth and I'm not here for a popularity contest. I would take any of these FOOLS on face to face if I had my choice. (*Note – coming soon my husband will be allowing guests to be on his radio show and people can call in to debate with us...if they dare.)

    But just like the Bible says – Do NOT cast your pearls before swine or give what is holy to the dogs.

    *GASP* Swine? Dogs? Yes – that is more name calling and mocking straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ – the same guy who called people ignorant FOOLS!

    God commands us to mock sinners and point out the error of their ways. Heathens like Phronk have no authority to mock anyone because they are swine knee-deep in manurer, living by their own understanding and they know not what they do.

    It’s funny how the same people who accuse us of “intentionally misrepresenting the position we are debating against” know nothing of our position and make audacious claims about God and the Bible.

    The same people who criticize the Bible and say it’s fallible because it was "written by man," will put their faith in themselves and fully trust evolutionary sources which are put together by man.

    --------------------------------

    Stevo – this is one of the best things you have said yet:

    REALLY "Knowing the Truth" puts one inna Non-negotiable stance of what the "Truth" iz...and ifya lower yourself to the level of negotiating with trash...the only result you can hope for iz diminishing your OWN value...

    This is why I have taken a step back. But hey – let’s call a spade a spade shall we? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…well, you know?

    A FOOL is a FOOL. God said it – Not me!

    ReplyDelete
  18. ..and...a rose izza rose and a zealot izza zealot.and mare's eat oats and dozey dotes and little lambs eat ivy..except in February which standz alone and in leap year has 28......buuuurrrppp..'scuse me...


    g'night....

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mark said,

    Does knowingly repeating what God has said, refuted, given you direction on, constitute a debate, or an futile effort in casting pearls before a swine?

    This is a not-so-clever rewording of my question, and, yet, has nothing to do with it. Unless you're saying that your god advocates plagiarism and quote-mining, but I doubt it. Let's address the question at hand before changing the topic, shall we?

    Does talking about Your opinions relabeld as Fact, constitute an intelligent discussion?

    Again, attempting to answer my question with another question. What's so difficult about these? They seem pretty simple to me.

    Let's try this again, and it's open to anyone:

    1. Does lying and stealing constitute an intelligent discussion?

    2. Does knowingly repeating scientifically refuted information constitute a debate?


    And to further clarify my line of questioning so that we can stay on topic, here:

    3. What do these answers imply in regards to KC's claim that she, Dani, Christine, and Mark are attempting to carry on an "intelligent debate"?

    And please, try to directly answer the question. I don't want to have to make this multiple choice.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dani:

    What is the point of proving evolution again? I forgot.

    1) I haven't been trying to prove evolution. I've been trying to disprove creationism. I know it's hard to grasp for you, but there is a difference. You still haven't answered my questions from a few posts ago, so I assume you have no good answer. Thanks for making me even more certain that creation is false.

    2) I like learning about the world, which includes learning about how other people view the world. Proving and disproving hypotheses is a major part of this approach, which I like to call "science". That is the point.

    Hope for what? Maybe what will click?

    Basic reasoning, debating, and conversation skills.

    See? Part of that is directly answering questions instead of answering them with an unrelated question or changing the topic.

    No need to repeat yourself - I'm not listening anyway!

    Well that about sums it up. It seems the only way to hold onto (your version of) creation as a viable belief is to completely ignore any criticism or competing theories.

    It's become clear, Dani, that you are too immature and/or dimwitted to engage in a debate about science or religion with. You completely misunderstood my little summary, and seem to be unable to follow basic lines of reasoning. You resort to namecalling, lying, cheating, and stealing to get your agenda across. You don't even feel a need to defend yourself against accusations like these, because (I assume) you think it's perfectly OK to engage in these immoral activities. Ironic, since you resort to appeals to morals when rational debate turns against you.

    It's just really sad, and I'm sorry I wasted so much time here in the hope that I could learn more about others' beliefs and have an intelligent conversation about them. Hope that even if we disagreed, we could still come out knowing more than when we went in, having been adults about it. Guess not. You FOOLISH POO-POO EATING PIG.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dani,

    I was just coming over to ask you to look at my little post in my Neoboard chat box at my blog. But after what phronk just said, I realize you've got it far worse over here!

    Christine

    P.S. What the hell is a "phronk" anyway?

    Pathetic
    Heretic
    Revealing
    Own
    Nutty
    Krap?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Phronk – Is lying, cheating, and stealing to get my agenda across morally wrong? Why? Says who? If Creation is false, then who cares if I lie, cheat and steal to prove a point?

    I am not going to attempt to defend myself because these accusations are absolutely absurd. You asked me a question regarding transitional fossils, I found the answer in a text book, then I copied a paragraph and posted it for you…does that suddenly make the answer false because I didn’t provide a link? Would you have believed it if I did? No, of course not. I don’t claim to have an endless supply of knowledge, but no matter what I say or who I get the information from you will reject it – so what’s the point?

    Here is a clip from a man named Jim Hilston over at TheologyOnline.com that explains this situation brilliantly:

    The Evolutionist as an Epistemological Loafer
    Consider the following hypothetical scenario:


    The Pneumatist believes in the existence of air and claims that all breathing depends on the air's existence and that without air, all breathing would be rendered impossible.
    The Apneumatist does not believe in the existence of air and claims that there is no evidence for the existence of air, and all the while he continues to breathe air. The Pneumatist points out to the Apneumatist the fact that, if air did not exist, he could not be breathing. But the Apneumatist responds and says, "No, you're wrong to say that my breathing would be impossible without air, because I AM in fact breathing!"

    This is the a similar scenario as we see in this debate. The Creationist believes in the existence of God and claims that the success of the tools of science depends on the extra-natural guidance and governance of God and that without Him, all science would be rendered impossible. The Methodological Naturalist refuses to acknowledge the extra-natural and claims that there is no need to consider the extra-natural in the scientific enterprise. The Creationist points out to the Methodological Naturalist the fact that, if God did not govern the natural by the extra-natural, he could not do science. But the Methodological Naturalist responds and says, "No, you're wrong to say that the success of the tools science would be impossible without God's governance, because my science is successful!"

    What we see in both of these scenarios is the failure to acknowledge the very foundation of what is being taken for granted. Our ability to know, to learn, to infer, to reason at all, depends upon the existence and attributes of a supernatural, personal God. Epistemology, the understanding of how we know what we know, has no rational foundation apart from God. Yet, the Methodological naturalist presumes to reason, to make inference, and to have knowledge. I do not deny their ability to do so, just as I would not deny the Apneumatist's ability to breathe God's air, but they cannot justify or rationally account for why they are successful at their science and how they breathe God's air. In the absence of cogent justification for breathing and reasoning, the anti-Creationist continues to breathe and to reason, but they do so without warrant, the whole time presuming upon the Creationist worldview and perception of reality in order to breathe and to make sense of everyday life. That is to say, the Methodological Naturalist/Evolutionist/anti-Creationist has not done, indeed could not do, his own work in order to justify what he knows and his theory of knowledge. By continuing to make claims to knowledge, he thus becomes an epistemological "loafer," tacitly borrowing Creationistic reasoning, and hijacking the tools of science without justification.

    Read the entire debate here => EVOLUTION: Science or Science Fiction?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dani, to veer off the ever-present topic of dubious import, I must confess to being bemused, and somewhat baffled by your comments regarding the Islamic religion. Despite the obvious, prosaic analogies between your ethos and that of the Islamic theism, you express an acute hatred for a religion which shares so many common denominators to your own.

    I must advise you that such a viewpoint is counterproductive to the broader promotion of Christianity, and inter-linking social and cultural themes and concerns inherent in all the mono-theistic religious traditions. Indeed, your ostensibly vehement dismissal of fellow theists in the Islamic faith, is symptomatic of the patently limited spiritual, and theological exploration of the religion you purport to subscribe to, and alternative religions of both equivalent longevities and of greater spans of existence than Christianity, itself. It is more appreciable to confer respect on those that have an encyclopaedic knowledge of theology, in all its variegated forms, than those that convey a concentrated wisdom in the one they wish to convert people to the "truth" of, while pouring scorn upon others that share such basic tenets, albeit differing prophets.

    To conclude I will quote from the Archbishop of Canterbury whom I have happily conversed with previously, despite our fundamentally differing viewpoints on life, but who in one of the oldest religious institutions, seems to portray a very civilised form of the Christian tradition:

    "Well, our challenges and our possibilities are both extreme in the world as it is, but the other thing which was said to me in Pakistan more than once and which I am happy to repeat here, is that we have to get out of any remnants of a mindset which thinks in terms of a clash of civilisations. That rhetoric does the rounds every so often, it depends on indifferent history, over bold projection and, generally, mutual ignorance. We can do better than that, and here in Britain we should try a design to help us do better than that, to think not of a clash of civilisations, but of a shared religious humanism in the proper sense of the word ‘humanism’, a commitment to the dignity and the liberty of human beings made to serve God. Human beings who find their fullest freedom and the deepest joy in the service of God, and who in sharing that together, have something to offer to society around which nothing else can offer. It’s a very ambitious vision with which to begin the work of the Forum, but I think that is where all those involved want to start. And they would see it as I’ve said not only as something for this country, but as something which ought to be making a contribution to a global challenge." (with regard to the Christian Muslim Forum (British))

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mr. Dawkins -

    The quote from Archbishop of Canterbury sounds wonderful if you are in support of the New World Order and a one-world religion where the majority rule and all paths lead to God. Religious humanism in the proper sense of the word means a commitment to the dignity and the liberty of human beings and elevating man above all else ultimately becoming our own god.

    Again and predictably, my views are interpreted as “hatred” simply because I don’t agree with any religion that rejects Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, including Islam. Jesus Himself expressed an extreme hatred for all religions that denied Him – so much so that He sends them to the fiery pits of hell as an eternal punishment. Jesus doesn’t give a rip about "inter-linking social and cultural themes" – NO! Jesus said “You are either for Me or you are against Me!”

    With all due respect Richard (Andrew), you have no authority to advise anyone about a viewpoint that you think is counterproductive to the broader promotion of Christianity because you are not a Christian, sir, and obviously you know nothing of the faith!

    The religion I purport to “subscribe” to says that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life! He is the ONE & ONLY WAY TO GOD -- Not all paths lead to God! To compromise on Truth for the sake of “alternative religions” would be blasphemy to our Creator, and ultimately the Body of Christ would cease to exist. The majority will reject the Truth – as evidence seen here on my blog. Wide is the gate that leads to destruction and many will enter through it, but narrow is the path that leads to righteousness and only few will find it. You are advertising the wide and easy road to God, but in the end it leads to death.

    The True Christian Faith does not compromise the Truth in God’s Word in order to convert people. We don’t what phony believers, we want sincere followers of Christ - eternal soldiers for righteousness. The Truth is offensive and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

    If you are offended - Good. Stop being a fool and start believing the Truth!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh dear, "the New World Order"? Please expand upon this fascinating concept to illuminate ignorant Brits of my ilk as to its significance. I would be profoundly gratified if you would do so, ma'am.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "The New World Order"? Please expand upon this fascinating concept...

    Well, there is a lot to expand on and I am certainly no expert on the subject. But I will do my best and give you the main reasons from a Biblical perspective of it's significance to Christians, the world we live in and society at large.

    One aspect of the 'New World Order’ that has not been properly searched out is the "religious" connection.

    Biblical Prophecy in Revelation 13 foretells the existence of a False Religious Prophet that leads the world into worship of the Antichrist and the End of Times when Jesus second coming will occur and the saints will judge the world. Many will parish during that time, and the false prophet will deceive millions of believers. Given that much of the world is religious, and in the currently reigning “SuperPower” nation of the U.S., predominantly "Christian," then it would only make sense that certain organizations have infiltrated the Church itself and are also actively leading it to into the New World Order as well. We can see this happening all over in Christian ministries today and with statements like from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    Many of the leading Christian evangelicals have ties to these N.W.O organizations. The Antichrist will claim to be Christian and will be accepted as a great leader, and He will be pertinent part of the New World Order Plan. This false prophet will have a very ambitious vision with which to begin the work and he will be disguised as a peacemaker, loving, tolerant and accepting of all faiths so that we can all bind together in unity and safety while making a contribution to the global good of mankind.

    Any Christian who knows their prophecy would immediately be on alert and take notice, because the Apostle Paul stated that the coming kingdom of Antichrist would come amidst proclamations of "Peace and Safety".

    Here is somthing else I just learned:

    In 1991 Bill Lambert, the New England Director of Theosophy, detailed a plan whereby the New World Order Religion would be established. During this seminar lecture, Lambert gave many important and revealing aspects of the New World Order Plan to produce Antichrist and his False Prophet. Lambert revealed that the person had been selected to fulfill this religious leadership position, and it was none other than the Roman Catholic Pope!!

    Listen to Lambert's explanation:

    "At the proper moment in history, the Pope will visit the combined Jewish/Christian/Moslem sector of Jerusalem to announce that all religions should be combined into one. "

    Read More Here ==> United Religions & the New World Order

    ------------------------

    Of course for this to mean anything, you have to first believe in God and that the Bible is true.

    Hope that helps you out!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Is lying, cheating, and stealing to get my agenda across morally wrong? Why? Says who? If Creation is false, then who cares if I lie, cheat and steal to prove a point?

    A) You've changed the topic. As predicted. Again.

    B) Myself and others have explained multiple times why there can be morals without Your Version of Christianity, much less creation.

    I am not going to attempt to defend myself because these accusations are absolutely absurd. You asked me a question regarding transitional fossils, I found the answer in a text book, then I copied a paragraph and posted it for you…does that suddenly make the answer false because I didn’t provide a link?

    You're right, the method by which you present your argument has nothing to do with it being true or false. But the method is also an important issue, especially for a person who bases so much of her beliefs and arguments on morality.

    You don't even seem to see what's wrong with it, which I find extremely strange. If it were me, I'd admit that I forgot to cite my source and apologize. It just seems right, in my heart. But I guess the Bible didn't deal with copyright issues, so your heart has been hardened to a point where blatantly stealing someone's ideas is just fine. This is yet another demonstration of how relying on a single outdated source for all your moral reasoning can lead you to do evil. Sure, us the Bible as a general guide if you want, but when you treat it as the only source, and as an infallible source, you're running into trouble.

    Think of this...how would you feel if someone copied and pasted your entire blog into a word processor, then bound it into a book and began selling copies of it? That would be OK? Oh, well, I guess it doesn't matter how you feel, right?

    Luckily the law doesn't think like you. There are laws against plagarism. You're probably subject to them, but I doubt anyone would enforce it (if you had ads here, that'd be a different story).

    Here is a clip from a man named Jim Hilston over at TheologyOnline.com that explains this situation brilliantly:

    Ok...thanks? But what about my argument against creation? You still haven't dealt with that. And I repeat, for the 5th or 6th time, that my argument had nothing to do with evolution.

    I guess we're back at the "What about Y?" part of the cycle already. Sigh.

    That clip itself is full of straw men, oversimplification, circular reasoning, and making claims without any evidence to back them up.

    For example:

    Our ability to know, to learn, to infer, to reason at all, depends upon the existence and attributes of a supernatural, personal God.

    OK, at least that's a factual statement instead of meaningless rhetoric. But where's the evidence to back it up? We have some pretty good theories as to how all those things work, and none of them involve God. What's wrong with those? And how is the God theory preferrable? Does it make better predictions? Does it explain more? Fit in with other theories better?

    I know you won't even think about what I'm saying here, but I hope at least some of it soaks in. It'll click for you someday, Dani.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Phronk -

    Here we go again - Wash, rinse, repeat...

    I didn't forget to leave a link, I deliberately left it off that particular post because I knew for a fact if I started my comment by saying this is from the "Center for Scientific Creation" you would have immediately glossed it over and labeled it as another "biased" statement which isn't true and has no merit. I sincerely just wanted you to read the answer without having any preconceived notion in your head. You even said - "This is a very good point. If you'd thought of it yourself (and not plagiarized, as Uber has shown you're prone to doing), I'd be impressed."

    If you recall this was what I said at the bottom of my "plagiarized" posts in response to you.

    Phronk said...If you brought up actual evidence that supports creationism, which was scientific, logical, and had no obvious problems, I'd be surprised, but receptive. I'd look into it, and if there truly was something to it, my beliefs would change.

    I said..."Would you really be receptive? There is overwhelming scientific evidence for creation that you have never seen before and I will post it if you are truly interested. Why don’t you sleep on it and let me know?"

    Unfortunately, Ubersehen jumped the gun and posted the links for me, but I already had the "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown post set up, I was just waiting for someone to express some interest before I posted it. This is not a moral issue - I am not copying his entire book and profiting from it - I was just sharing some information with you that I learned from reading it.

    Besides, since when do you care about morals? My "truth" may not be the same as your "truth" - what's good for me may not be good for you, so who cares? Who gets to decide what is True or not?

    Moving along to the spin cycle...

    But what about my argument against creation? You still haven't dealt with that. I guess we're back at the "What about Y?"

    I already said that Y is wrong because it is relative and changes with the times. Your argument against creation is only based on your opinion and your own limited understanding - so it really means nothing in the big scheme of things.

    Our ability to know, to learn, to infer, to reason at all, depends upon the existence and attributes of a supernatural, personal God.

    But where's the evidence to back it up?


    Your ability to know, to learn, to infer, to reason at all, Phronk - is the EVIDENCE!

    We have some pretty good theories as to how all those things work, and none of them involve God. What's wrong with those?

    They are wrong because it elevates man into God's position as the author of life. These theories are false and cannot be proved.

    And how is the God theory preferable?

    Because believing in God as the Creator says that your are more than just a cosmic accident. You have a purpose for living because you were created with infinite worth and value. You were wonderfully designed and given special gifts and talents because God loves you and wants to have a relationship with you for all of eternity. Why is that so bad?

    Believing in evolution says that you are worth the same as dirt. There is no purpose for living because you are just a product of several mutations and once you die you will return to dirt. Do you prefer to think of yourself as worthless dirt?

    Why are you trying so hard to disprove creationism?

    What is wrong with the idea that God created us? <--- Please answer this directly.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I didn't forget to leave a link, I deliberately left it off that particular post

    Holy crap! Do you not see what a hole you're digging yourself into here?

    I'll make this simple. Stealing is wrong. You stole. I gave you an out - I gave you the benefit of the doubt - and suggested that maybe it was a mistake. Then you come back and say "no, I stole it on purpose, and there's nothing wrong with it."

    Your reasons for doing it don't matter - it's still plagarism. You took someone else's ideas and tried to get away with posting them as your own ideas. If you can't see what's wrong with that, your problems run deeper than your religion.

    Besides, since when do you care about morals? My "truth" may not be the same as your "truth" - what's good for me may not be good for you, so who cares? Who gets to decide what is True or not?

    We've been over this many times. I (and all humans, regardless of religion) have morals. I also don't believe in relative truth. I've probably repeated this more than 10 times now. I've even whipped out the caps lock on it. If you're too damn stupid to remember it, maybe you should write in on your hand or something. If you're intentionally bringing it up as a straw man, despite me and others pointing out your fallacy, then that's damn stupid itself.

    I apologize for the strong language, but how many times does something need to be repeated to get through your head?

    I already said that Y is wrong because it is relative and changes with the times. Your argument against creation is only based on your opinion and your own limited understanding - so it really means nothing in the big scheme of things.

    No...see...you're still not understanding. "Y" is a placeholder that can be replaced with any topic. I simply meant that you repeatedly slip in a tangential topic, "Y", in the middle of a debate about the main topic, "X", in order to change the subject when it gets too difficult for you.

    Now let's deal with creationism, X. Here is my argument again: If your creation is true, there are no transitional fossils. There are transitional fossils. Therefore your creation is not true.

    This follows the simple logic structure of "If A then B", "not B", "therefore not A" If the two premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

    I have provided evidence that both premises are true. It has nothing to do with me or my opinion. It has nothing to do with evolution. It has nothing to do with morals. Stop dancing around it: Which premise is wrong, and why? <-- Please directly answer this question.

    This is a direct attack on one of your fundamental beliefs. If you are so sure that it is right, it should be easy to deal with, and you should feel motivated to deal with it.

    Your ability to know, to learn, to infer, to reason at all, Phronk - is the EVIDENCE!

    You are just repeating the statement. That doesn't show it to be true.

    You want to connect the ability to learn with God. To do so, you have to show HOW they are linked...you can't just repeat "no really, they're linked" over and over. I can say "the September 11th attacks were caused by cheese", but that's pretty meaningless unless I say HOW cheese caused it.

    They are wrong because it elevates man into God's position as the author of life. These theories are false and cannot be proved.

    1) No they don't. Have you read about theories of learning? Or did you just make that up?

    2) They have been researched and supported. What's wrong with this research?

    Because believing in God as the Creator says that your are more than just a cosmic accident. You have a purpose for living because you were created with infinite worth and value. You were wonderfully designed and given special gifts and talents because God loves you and wants to have a relationship with you for all of eternity. Why is that so bad?

    You're, again, confusing the consequences of belief with the truth value of the belief. Romantic comedy movies might make me feel all warm and happy, knowing that true love exists and things always turn out alright, and there's a purpose to everything. But - I hope you'll agree with me here - they're not true stories. Fiction can be just as uplifting as fact. Usually moreso.

    Believing in evolution says that you are worth the same as dirt. There is no purpose for living because you are just a product of several mutations and once you die you will return to dirt.

    1) No it doesn't. You still demonstrate that you know nothing about evolution or its consequences.

    2) Where the hell did this come from? Remember when I repeated 20 times that I wasn't talking about evoluition? Why do you keep bringing it up as if I was?

    Why are you trying so hard to disprove creationism?

    Because I like to learn about the universe. And I want to shatter your belief system in order to save your children from a life of immorality and stupidity. And because debating this helps to clarify my own thoughts and beliefs. And because it's fun.

    What is wrong with the idea that God created us? <--- Please answer this directly.

    I don't see why I should, since you rarely answer any of my questions, but I guess it's better to lead by example.

    Basically, what's wrong with it is that it is not true.

    I don't think it's inherently wrong to believe in a god, any more than it's wrong to believe that Batman is a real person, but you have used your belief in a specific version of God to justify things that are wrong - such as hurting innocent people, and, we can now add, plagarism.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Phronk - It's funny to me that you provide the same lame answer about creation that I give for evolution --> "Basically, what's wrong with it is that it is not true."

    OKAY? If you say so! There's no logical fallacy in that statement whatsoever - right?

    If your creation is true, there are no transitional fossils. There are transitional fossils. Therefore your creation is not true.

    This is an absurd claim and I already said 10 times that just because there might be transitional fossils, it does NOT disprove Creation. It still begs the question of where they originated - there has to be a first cause. Bla-bla-bla-bla - S.O.S.

    As fun as this is, there is no evidence that will convince you that creation is true. NONE! I have no evidence to prove how our brains work that give us the ability to know, to learn, to infer, to reason at all. I have no evidence to show how emotions "evolved" or how 1000's of complex written and spoken languages developed instantaneously. I have no evidence prove that God is the One who placed morality inside your heart and gave you distinct characteristics that sets you apart from animals, trees and rocks. I DON'T KNOW HOW ALL THAT HAPPENED! BUT IT SURE AS HELL DID NOT EVOLVE!

    And I want to shatter your belief system in order to save your children from a life of immorality and stupidity.

    Oh - you mean the kind of immorality that praises homosexual relationships and other perversions? The kind of stupidity that says we evolved from apes? Or the kind of immorality that says men should use women and have multiple sex partners outside of marriage? The kind of stupidity that says maximize your happiness and live for yourself? Or perhaps the kind of immorality promotes the killing of unborn babies for the sake of "choice" - is that the kind of immorality you hope to save my children from? Please elaborate for me as to what exactly you believe to be immoral and stupid that you want to save my children from.

    Enjoy your bubble you call life - I sure don't want to be the one to pop it for you.

    Oh - and Jesus already forgave me for "plagiarism" so I won't be going to hell over that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Me: If your creation is true, there are no transitional fossils. There are transitional fossils. Therefore your creation is not true.

    Dani: This is an absurd claim and I already said 10 times that just because there might be transitional fossils, it does NOT disprove Creation. It still begs the question of where they originated - there has to be a first cause. Bla-bla-bla-bla - S.O.S.


    Ok, so you still don't understand a basic argument. That's sad. :(

    Which claim do you think is absurd?

    A) If creation is true, there are no transitional fossils.

    or

    B) There are transitional fossils.

    You still never directly address this. I'm stuck on this, because it's something that should be so easy to deal with, yet you can't just friggin do it.

    there is no evidence that will convince you that creation is true. NONE!

    Yeah. I know.

    I have no evidence to prove how our brains work that give us the ability to know, to learn, to infer, to reason at all.

    That's nice. I do. Hint: It doesn't involve creation.

    I have no evidence to show how emotions "evolved" or how 1000's of complex written and spoken languages developed instantaneously.

    I could find such evidence. I don't know where the "instantanously" claim came from though. In any case, the explanation doesn't require creation.

    I have no evidence prove that God is the One who placed morality inside your heart and gave you distinct characteristics that sets you apart from animals, trees and rocks.

    Damn. I was hoping you'd at least have something.

    I DON'T KNOW HOW ALL THAT HAPPENED! BUT IT SURE AS HELL DID NOT EVOLVE!

    Whoa. What kind of ignorant crap is that?

    Can I play this game too? I DON'T KNOW HOW I'M STAYING STUCK TO THE PLANET, BUT IT SURE AS HELL AIN'T GRAVITY! I DON'T KNOW WHAT CAUSES CANCER, BUT IT SURE AS HECK ISN'T SMOKING! I'M TOO LAZY TO LEARN WHAT SCIENCE HAS TO SAY, BUT I SURE AS HELL KNOW IT AIN'T TRUE!

    Please elaborate for me as to what exactly you believe to be immoral and stupid that you want to save my children from.

    Immoral stuff like stealing. Immoral stuff like advocating murder of innocent people (with delusions that they are "sinners" who deserve to die). Stupid stuff like being unable to grasp a basic "If A then B" argument. Stupid stuff like thinking that ignorance of regarding science is a good thing.

    Enjoy your bubble you call life - I sure don't want to be the one to pop it for you.

    Oh by all means, pop it. I'd love to see a good argument disproving evolution or atheism. Then I'd have learned something - something major. Go for it!

    Oh - and Jesus already forgave me for "plagiarism" so I won't be going to hell over that.

    Phew! Well at least you admit that it's wrong now (or at least Jesus did).

    I actually raped and murdered a few hookers the other night, but thanks to your words of wisdom, Dani, I just prayed for forgiveness. I knew it was wrong, but hey, Jesus died for our wrongdoings, right? Might as well take advantage. So yeah, I prayed, and heard voices in my head that I attributed to Jesus, and he totally told me that I'm getting into heaven. Awesome. I'll try not to do it again, but hey, we're all sinners deep down so who knows if I can help it. I can always just pray again, and BAM! Clean slate.

    Thanks for showing me the light, Dani!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LET ME SHOW YOU THIS LIGHT "PHRONK" - IT'S A FREIGHT TRAIN COMING FOR YOU!

      "PHRONK" = BOB ADOLPH ENYART TROLL = SERIAL RAPIST & CHILD-KILLER WAITING FOR THE FBI TO ARREST HIM FOR MURDER!

      Elaine Redwine, mother of Dylan Redine says "Whoever killed my son is a MONSTER" - and it's the SAME MONSTER who conspired with Kimberly Kay Bowman to run a rampant Internet gossip system to frame Mark Redwine for the crime. The same MONSTER who MURDERED JonBenet Ramsey in 1996 and who organized Jessica Ridgeway's abduction & murder in Oct 2012.
      "When the suspect's background, post-murder behavior, and physical evidence are put together, the identity of this monster will be clear to someone who knows him." ~ The Ramseys

      AND WE KNOW EXACTLY WHO THAT MONSTER IS...
      JonBenet Ramsey, Jessica Ridgeway & Dylan Redwine were Murdered by this MONSTER in CO: *R*O*B*E*R*T *A*D*O*L*P*H *E*N*Y*A*R*T = *6*6*6* = *DAXIS* = *SON of SATAN*

      *ShadowGov.com leader Bob Enyart is a Sadistic Serial Child-Killer in a "Small Foreign Faction" waiting for his DNA Secrets to Be Revealed!

      www.BobEnyartMurderedJonBenetRamsey.com

      Delete

NO TROLLS ALLOWED - Comments will be moderated - Remember, it's always a good idea to tell the TRUTH....