Better terminology for "Father and Son" ?

[vorlon13]

*it's not a sin if you do it for jesus.

So if I make sure to say "Oh, Jesus; oh, Jesus" while I do it, I get a free pass on the whole sin thing? Sweet!

You would be continuously re-invoking Salvation while sinning, I'd say you're good to go !!

Praise Jesus !!

[The Grand Nudger]

So if I make sure to say "Oh, Jesus; oh, Jesus" while I do it, I get a free pass on the whole sin thing? Sweet!

-only if you give it your best Britney.

[Godscreated]

---

GodscreatedWhat you call belief I know as fact.

GC

No, you fucking don't. If your beliefs were facts, you could provide actual, testable, verifiable evidence to back them up. You may think you "know," but you don't.

Yes I do, the fact I can't bring you testable, verifiable proof is because it takes a belief in our savior to see it. An open heart to Christ will open the eyes of the hardest person.

---

So tell me when did telling the truth qualify as non-respect, seriously. I could post pages from Min alone saying many undeserved thing, but then you probably see those from Min and many others as deserved, I do not. Read my signature, it's true, but I will defend my beliefs with the same rights as atheist do, I think it's appropriate that when we play ball we use both sides of the court, not just the atheist. You seem sensitive to my post to others yet you have no sensitivity when it comes to what others say about me, you seem to have a bias problem. You need to understand I do not care what others even Christians say about me, I'm a grown man who understands that many adults are childish I've seen it over my 63 years of life, experience is a good teacher and I pay attention closely so that I can gain that experience.

GC

You know, you come here bitching, quite loudly and repeatedly, about the lack of respect you receive yet there are many examples of respected theists on this board. Perhaps we're simply making change in the coin tendered.[/quote]

 I do not complain about respect, atheist do that. They complain about me not having respect for them and when I say why do you complain because most here do not respect me and you accept that with no problem. I try not to disrespect anyone, it's to bad you see truth as disrespect, but then I guess when people have no real moral standards they can claim anything that suits their situation.

GC

---

There has never been an observation of one animal, plant or what ever changing into something totally different... You see I have looked at both sides and determined evolution has no foundation at even a basic level.

Second you haven't look at scientific ones because you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself here writing that there has never been an observation of evolution happening in the lab. If you truly read a scientific book or even an article on evolution you would know that back in the 1960's first one to observe and repeat evolution in the lab was Theodosius Dobzhansky. It has happened a number of times since then and we know how to make that happen now as New Scientist described in a June 9, 2008 article titled "Bacteria Make Major Evolutionary Shift in the Lab"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...n-the-lab/

There was even observation of a single-celled organism becoming multicellular under controlled laboratory conditions and it needed just 60 days.
https://www.wired.com/2012/01/evolution-...llularity/

 I had to do that, it was ridiculously funny, pun intended. Evolution is not a controlled process and until you learn that you want see anything in true light. Scientist playing at being a god doesn't mean evolution took place.

GC

---

 Trump has nothing to do with this conversation and apparently you are having all kinds of trouble with it yourself. What you call belief I know as fact. I have been able to take every cherry pick verse that atheist misinterpret to suit their own desire, they do not look for the truth and when it is presented they turn a blind eye and go off screaming, untrue untrue. They run from the conversation as if they were set on fire, pun intended.

GC

Run from the conversation?!  Another lie among many.  You're a stooge.

The real stooge is the one who calls another a stooge without offering any argument at all. Your claims mean nothing without proof, believe that's a famous atheist saying, right.

GC

---

They were not Hebrews.

GC

---

 Dodge noted. Your posting style strongly suggests you are some sort of bot, a poorly programmed one at that. I have yet to see you present an original argument for the existence of your cosmic Jewish zombie, now why would that be?
Your arse is not a source of knowledge or wisdom neither are creationist websites, so stop using them. Unless you're a troll, albeit a cleaver one, you know exactly how far you can go too far, least the ban hammer falls. And as pointed out above, your constant reference to PRATT, tells me you aren’t the least bit genuine with regard to open honest discussion.

 I dodged nothing and you've provided only ennuendo. As far as my testimony about Christ I tell what I know and then it's up to you to deal with. God doesn't try to prove Himself through the scriptures, He calls for faith first.

Who in the world is Pratt?
Just because you are afraid of what creation scientist have to say doesn't mean what they present isn't true, just denied by those like you who can't understand what they are presenting.

GC

[Fake Messiah]

Scientist playing at being a god

How are scientist "playing god" when you claim no evolution took place but rather God created everything in six days? Unless you are saying that evolution took place and somehow God was involved. You see how you contradict yourself.

[Harry Nevis]

---

GodscreatedWhat you call belief I know as fact.

GC

No, you fucking don't. If your beliefs were facts, you could provide actual, testable, verifiable evidence to back them up. You may think you "know," but you don't.

Yes I do, the fact I can't bring you testable, verifiable proof is because it takes a belief in our savior to see it. An open heart to Christ will open the eyes of the hardest person.

---

Because it doesn't exist. And there are millions who have "opened their heart" as you say and got nothing.

---

You know, you come here bitching, quite loudly and repeatedly, about the lack of respect you receive yet there are many examples of respected theists on this board. Perhaps we're simply making change in the coin tendered.

 I do not complain about respect, atheist do that. They complain about me not having respect for them and when I say why do you complain because most here do not respect me and you accept that with no problem. I try not to disrespect anyone, it's to bad you see truth as disrespect, but then I guess when people have no real moral standards they can claim anything that suits their situation.

I say you're lying again.  I've seen no atheist here complain of not being respected.  They complain of your pigheadedness, poor logic and gullibility.  We expect disrespect from believers.

---

---

Run from the conversation?!  Another lie among many.  You're a stooge.

The real stooge is the one who calls another a stooge without offering any argument at all. Your claims mean nothing without proof, believe that's a famous atheist saying, right.

GC

---

My argument is that you're a liar.  No one has run from a conversation here.  They just get tired of your bullshit.

---

Who in the world is Pratt?
Just because you are afraid of what creation scientist have to say doesn't mean what they present isn't true, just denied by those like you who can't understand what they are presenting.

GC
[/quote]

By definition, what they say is untrue.  The very term "creation scientist" is a lie.

[Ravenshire]

Yes I do, the fact I can't bring you testable, verifiable proof is because it takes a belief in our savior to see it. An open heart to Christ will open the eyes of the hardest person.

GC

Sorry, but your delusions are non-transferable.

Been there, done that, got crickets in response. Quit trying to sell me. It's not gonna work.

[Cyberman]

Scientist playing at being a god

How are scientist "playing god" when you claim no evolution took place but rather God created everything in six days? Unless you are saying that evolution took place and somehow God was involved. You see how you contradict yourself.

They are playing at God by not existing.

Oh wait...

[Godscreated]

Prove to me that this happened six million years ago.

Prove to me that you have a strong enough understanding of genetics to understand any explanation I may deign to give you.

You can give whatever you want or keep it to yourself, you were not there six million years ago and by that alone can't make any real testament.
 

There has never been an observation of one animal, plant or what ever changing into something totally different,

 

Things don't generally speciate while you're staring at them.  You have to look at the big picture, and that requires vastly longer time spans than your mythology permits.

You are right about that, and the big picture of evolution has no picture at all. My God didn't need all that time to create create those animals and He designed into them the ability to adapt, that type of programming needs little time.

 

Except for sexual reproduction, stochastic switching due to the chemical composition of the environment, any non-deleterious mutation, chromosome fission and chromosome fusion.  Seriously, GC, DNA is just a rather complex molecule.  Anything that can alter its chemistry is capable of changing the so-called information, and if the change does not harm the organism it has a chance of being inherited by a descendant.

Changing the information, true, adding new information, no. None of the things you noted above can add new information to DNA. DNA is not just it is essential.
Altered DNA information means a loss of the original not a gain in the new, you know this why are you trying to argue against something you know, a house divided will not stand, that is what evolution is regardless of how widely it might be accepted. Like atheist on this site like to say the majority doesn't matter, the truth does.

An oyster shell was sent to be carbon dated several years ago, the age came back as 100,000 years old...

 

I call bullshit.  An expert in radiometric dating would not have reported 100,000 years using C14, as the practical limit of that dating method is only about 50,000 years.

There is also a slim chance that a filter-feeding bivalve such as the unfortunate oyster in question might have ingested something that would yield a false positive, such as some dissolved calcium carbonate that had originally been in a fossil in  an ancient seabed and leached out into the water, but that is a minor consideration considering that the whole story sounds, um, fishy.

Right you are and glad to see you've given a reasonable limit to that test that was used for many years to date things that were said to be millions of years old and guess what those dates have never been changed from there original test by C-14. C-14 is even less reliable than that because we can not know for sure the c14 that was present at the time and also it doesn't work on fossils since the original tissues are no longer present. Not a fishy story, the test was done before a time limit was recognized for c14 and since evolutionary science doesn't re-date it's old claims I do not need to either, that's fair, right. Since an oyster filters water to clean it the calcium carbonate would have been retained in the living animal, processed and deposited into it's shell as new material, your slim chance just went out the door.

So tell me when did telling the truth qualify as non-respect, seriously.

GC, I am willing to stake my entire life, and any other lives I may someday possess, on the proposition that you are not telling the truth.  I doubt very much that you're lying on purpose, but you seem to have an insurmountable problem with distinguishing between knowledge and belief, and between fact and fiction.

I thank you for believing I wouldn't intentionally lie to you because I wouldn't. I can distinguish just fine between those examples you've given. If you haven't read my posts on the process of a knowledge of God then let me state it here, first come faith and faith leads to belief and belief used properly leads to a knowledge of God, this is taught in the NT and unfortunately few seem to recognize this. 

You seem sensitive to my post to others yet you have no sensitivity when it comes to what others say about me, you seem to have a bias problem.

I'm merely reporting things as I see them -- You were the one who poisoned this well, and now you're upset that we're making you drink from it.  Stop calling people fools.  Stop calling people blind.  Stop pretending that you're the only adult in the fucking room.

I poisoned no well, you seem to believe that telling the truth in my case is some how being disrespectful, not sure how you can come to such a conclusion. You all believe and may I say falsely, that I'm upset at things said to me and I'm not, the attitude used does not make for friendly thoughts from me, but I generally let them go. If I was to responded to all the trash thrown my way I would never be able to have the time to post on subject.
I do not call people fools, I do say they have foolish idea, thoughts and such. There's a big difference.
I call people blind when they reject truth because they want to reject what another knows as the truth. I also call people blind when they us demeaning wording toward me and add nothing responsible to the conversation, that's is childish.
I do not act like the only adult in the room, sometimes I'm the biggest child because I should know better. Most of my unsavory comments go to those who act most like children, mostly because they are and the newbies because they are trying to impress people like you with their insolent behavior, now if I'm guessing right these things will be considered poisoning the well also.

I'm a grown man who understands that many adults are childish I've seen it over my 63 years of life, experience is a good teacher and I pay attention closely so that I can gain that experience.

I'm 60.  To me you present as extremely childish and gullible, hopelessly brainwashed into a particularly silly subset of Christianity, and arrogant enough to think that you possess a truth that all the non-believers here failed to grasp despite most of us living in heavily Christian environments for most or all of our lives.

 Because you lived in a Christian environment doesn't mean you know anything about the Christian faith. I do posses a truth that all non-believers have rejected and they accept any reasonable explanation of the scriptures and how they work to warrant another look. believe me I know why atheist do this, I did it for years, I'm no stranger to the excuses that can be made to avoid looking into the scriptures.
You probably see me in the way you do because I'm a rather blunt at times, especially when I've explained the same thing over and over to the same person, sometimes for years. being truthful doesn't make me childish and believing in the God of creation and salvation doesn't make me gullible, that would be only your opinion. You are able to have that opinion of me if you so desire and believe me it doesn't bother me nor am I complaining about it. I have far greater things to worry about in this world than what people think about me when I know they are not right. This my mother and father taught me long ago.

GC

---

Scientist playing at being a god

How are scientist "playing god" when you claim no evolution took place but rather God created everything in six days? Unless you are saying that evolution took place and somehow God was involved. You see how you contradict yourself.

I haven't contradicted myself it's your confused brain that's the problem. Scientist go into the lab and try a controlled experiment and then claim it's evolution. Evolution, as I stated earlier has to be without exception a natural uncontrolled action outside any lab, other wise it's a scientist trying to play a god. Evolution has never been observed in nature, period , and a statement that it has would be a lie.

GC

---

Yes I do, the fact I can't bring you testable, verifiable proof is because it takes a belief in our savior to see it. An open heart to Christ will open the eyes of the hardest person.

GC

Sorry, but your delusions are non-transferable.

Been there, done that, got crickets in response. Quit trying to sell me. It's not gonna work.

 The problem you have begins by believing I'm delusional and the next part of the problem you have is believing I'm trying to sale you something. I was given the gift of salvation through grace and it's not for sale, gifts are not bought they are given through love and all i'm trying to do is show people that God loves them despite what they want to believe.
I gave you a long response in another thread and you chose not to respond and that's fine, but there was one question I asked you that I was hoping to get an answer to and I believe that question is why you did not respond.

GC

[Astreja]

I do posses a truth that all non-believers have rejected...

There is no truth in you worth possessing.  Perhaps someday reality will give you the kick in the pants that you so desperately need, and you'll grow up and stop believing in stupid things.  I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.

[Fake Messiah]

I haven't contradicted myself it's your confused brain that's the problem. Scientist go into the lab and try a controlled experiment and then claim it's evolution. Evolution, as I stated earlier has to be without exception a natural uncontrolled action outside any lab, other wise it's a scientist trying to play a god.

So you are projecting by saying that I'm confused while in your confusion you fail to explain why you constantly put Jesus and evolution in the same context and yet claim that evolution never happened.

Evolution has never been observed in nature, period , and a statement that it has would be a lie.

Oh so you're on a holy mission of lying for Jesus. Too bad for you that your lies are are easily disproved since evolution is observed in nature all the time. Like evolution of language: Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese all evolved from Latin. Each of these newer tongues emerged via a slow accumulation of their own unique lingo, occasionally acquiring new slang, abbreviations, or terms adopted from other sources (these are analogous to genetic mutations, BTW). Thus, the original Latin diverged into new dialects and eventually distinct forms of gibberish such that the new Romans could no longer effectively communicate with either Parisians or Spaniards. Take that novel "Don Quixote" which is old enough that in its original form, it isn't yet Spanish, but it isn't quite Latin anymore either; it is an intermediate form.