Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[LastPoet]

He will just hapilly continue to lie for jesus!

[The Grand Nudger]

You have to argue your evidence in? You argue for your conclusions, you don't bicker about what is or is not evidence. No special considerations will be given. Your evidence must stand up to the same scrutiny that all other evidence stands up to. There will be no "paranoid conspiracy theorist classification" of evidence. Creation rags are not science, they are political organs.

I am not going to play in this double standard game. A geologists can say that cliff took millions of years to form based on nothing but observation but when someone walks around and says that took days to form all the scientist does is ridicule. The only reason those cliffs form Mt St Helens isn't guessed to have formed gradually is because they saw it happen. Otherwise they would say "oh look a cliff, that's a gradual process." I made a prediction that I would present evedince that these long processes can be shortened and all I got was "no." if that's the case nothing I say can change your minds because you are not open to new ideas. This process happened therefore it's plausable.

LOL, no, just no. When scientists make observations about deposits of material around volcanoes (active or dead) they take eruptions into account (why you would imagine that they didn't is beyond me). Based upon the layers alone it would be difficult to determine the age of a volcano, or anything around an area of volcanic activity at any time (this is well understood, which is why other methods were sought out).

That a process can be shortened (laughable, considering the subject honestly) does not mean that it was.

[genkaus]

This process happened therefore it's plausable.

Wow, you learned a new word. Now learn probable.

Even the word he learned is wrong. Its plausible, not plausable.

[Phil]

This process happened therefore it's plausable.

Wow, you learned a new word. Now learn probable.

Well you can choose to believe what you want but you can't say gradual process is most likely because there is no other plausable answer when there actually is.

I can say that a gradual process is more likely but not during a volcanic eruption which you seem to forget Mt. St. Helens is. You have to understand the difference between possible and probable. Look at it this way, it is definitely possible for you to survive a fall from 30000 feet without a parachute (record is 33316 feet by Vesna Vulović) but would you say it's probable that you would?

[Faith No More]

He will just hapilly continue to lie for jesus!

To be fair, I don't think he's actually lying as that would imply that he knows what is the truth. I think it's willful ignorance that is his problem.

Chippy, my sister has a Ph.D. in geophysics, so I could ask her about this and put this issue to rest. I'm sure, however, that you would just dimiss the answers since she is not a Jesus follower.

[Cyberman]

This is all like saying that, since we know rocks can fall to Earth as meteorites, this means that the most likely explanation for every rock we see is they're all meteorites. A process which accounts for one observable facet of nature doesn't automatically account for all others, however similar. That's where scientific investigation comes in of course (and where "creation science" goes out).

[5thHorseman]

Where is Orogenicman, our forum professional Geologist to teach Chipan, same way he taught StatlerWaldork, pwnage.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

'Being a liar for Jesus" reminds me of a really nasty cult we had here about 30 years ago; "Children Of God". Today they call themselves "The Family International"

The most attractive female teen members were openly encouraged to "be a hooker for Jesus".They would prey on confused,gormless and extremely horny teenage boys.They would fuck the boys' brains out,then lead them by the dick into the cult. Very effective.

The Family International (TFI), formed as the Children of God (COG) and later named Family of Love and the Family, is a cult,[1][2] started in 1968 in Huntington Beach, California, United States. It began in the late 1960s, with many of its early converts drawn from the hippie movement. The Children of God was among the movements prompting the cult controversy of the 1970s and 1980s in the United States and Europe and triggered the first organized anticult group FREECOG.

Loving Jesus
This is a term that TFI members use to describe their intimate, sexual relationship with Jesus. TFI describes the "Loving Jesus" teachings as a radical form of bridal theology.[21] It is their understanding of the Bible that the followers of Christ are his bride, called to love and serve him with the fervor of a wife. They took bridal theology further than mainstream Christians by encouraging members to imagine that Jesus is having sex with them during sexual intercourse and masturbation. Male members were encouraged to visualize themselves as women, in order to avoid a homosexual relationship with Jesus. Many publications and messages TFI members received from the spirit work and even claim to be from Jesus himself refer to and elaborate on this intimate, sexual relation that they believe Jesus desires and needs from his church, and TFI in particular being his special "bride" in graphic poetry, guided visualizations, artwork [10] and songs [11], and more. Some literature was unable to be brought into more conservative countries for fear they might be classified at customs as pornography [12]. The literature that first revealed this new view of Jesus and his desire for a sexual relationship with believers was slightly edited and made available to 12 & 14 year olds [13], and then further edited and published in mild terms for children

[14].http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_God_(cult)


The full Wiki article makes fascinating reading.These arseholes make Scientology look downright benign.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_God_(cult)

[chi pan]

This is all like saying that, since we know rocks can fall to Earth as meteorites, this means that the most likely explanation for every rock we see is they're all meteorites. A process which accounts for one observable facet of nature doesn't automatically account for all others, however similar. That's where scientific investigation comes in of course (and where "creation science" goes out).

No no. Not presumptions that are so obvious but more subtle ones. It is presumed that time and space is uniform but what if it's not? It used to be presumed that space was nothing, but now it's increasingly being thought as an entity. This is how theories of wormholes started to rise. It was also presumed time was uniform, but we now find that it's not; proven by Einstein. Everyone has preassumptions, but the question is what are yours? Even Stephan Hawking admits to his.

we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology.

Ideology is personal beliefs, so he admits that many of the theories they come up with is a mixture of evidence and personal beliefs.

[The Grand Nudger]

We make assumptions without even realizing it Chip. What's more important than whether or not we make assumptions ( it's safe to assume that we all do ), or what those assumptions are (could be anything, like ammonia tasting like melted pennies), is what we do when we find out that those assumptions that we made were baseless or even in direct conflict with what evidence we have available.

You're grasping at straws, attempting to borrow the credibility of others by quote mining.