10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer

[Astonished]

The fact that your god doesn't punish fucking liars like you speaks volumes. That's no god anyone in their right mind would want to associate with. Shouldn't even have to mention that this explains why you do.

[Godscreated]

Because they can't accept that God created the universe from nothing. They needed some kinda' story and I guess that's the best they could do.

GC

So it's a vast scientific conspiracy by scientists, including many who believe in God?

Whew, I was so concerned that you were going to come up with an explanation that's completely unhinged.

I can't help that there are Christians who do not believe the creation story given to us by God, that will be something they will have to deal with someday. I'm saying they couldn't come up with another story, if they could have that story might be the prevalent one instead. If atheistic scientist can't come up with something then all that's left is God and this statement came from an atheist.

GC

[Astonished]

So it's a vast scientific conspiracy by scientists, including many who believe in God?

Whew, I was so concerned that you were going to come up with an explanation that's completely unhinged.

I can't help that there are Christians who do not believe the creation story given to us by God, that will be something they will have to deal with someday. I'm saying they couldn't come up with another story, if they could have that story might be the prevalent one instead. If atheistic scientist can't come up with something then all that's left is God and this statement came from an atheist.

GC

Neither can your god, apparently. Really says something about his non-existence or impotence. Or lack of care for his creation. Not a single one of those having a good connotation. Hard to square the concept of a good god with that in mind.

[Inkfeather132]

Basically, you keep saying that you won't quote scripture to me nor give me evidence because you don't think I'll accept it.

I haven't said that, i said in the state of mind you have now you would ignore them. Here's one, probably the most important one in the Bible, John 3:16. Here are some more, Luke 1:68-69, Luke 2:30, Acts 4:12, 2nd Corinthians 6:2.

I've told you before, show me the evidence and I'll believe. The only reason I reject your claim of a god is because I've received no evidence of his existence from you or from him. I've already told him that I'll listen whenever he's ready to show himself to me, so now I offer you the same. Give me the evidence and I'll consider it. Continue dancing around the issue, and I'll just have to assume you don't actually have it.

 You are demanding something from God and like I told Jesster it doesn't work that way. Isaiah 66:2 and Isaiah 57:15 this is the attitude you need to hear from God, the attitude you have now blocks your spirit from hearing God. Works will never save anyone but we must put forward an effort and seek. As I've said before I can't give you evidence that will suit your closed heart.

GC

I have a very open heart about these matters actually. I never demanded anything of god, I simply left it up to him to convince me if he felt I was worth saving. So far, I guess I'm just not worth it to him if he exists.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

"Change within a kind" is evolution by another name.  Adaptation to changing environmental conditions is natural selection.  Hybrid infertility is an issue of disparate genetics.  Looks like you accept modern synth after all, you just think that it started significantly later than all available evidence demonstrates, when god decided to play around in the dirt.  Guess you've got some repenting to do, heretic.  Do your fundy literalist friends know that you accept evilution?

 They know I despise evolution, and they also understand that changes in a kind to adapt to the environment doesn't bring about a whole sale change in a kind. Your statement is just another song and dance to get around the failed theory of evolution.

GC

Obviously not, since you described all the ways you accepted modern synth. OFC selection doesn't bring wholesale changes in "kind" - not even evilutionists think so. For that, you have to refer to the synth part - genetics. Does some genetic variation cause an indivual or one population of individuals to be incapable of successfully interbreeding with another. Why yes, yes it does. As you so conveniently opined upon, by reference to horses and mules. You take it upon yourself to refer to a "wholesale change in kind" and then casually claim that the theory which explains how this happens is wrong because it doesn't occur. The idiocy is painful.

[Godscreated]

---

 They know I despise evolution, and they also understand that changes in a kind to adapt to the environment doesn't bring about a whole sale change in a kind. Your statement is just another song and dance to get around the failed theory of evolution.

GC

Obviously not, since you described all the ways you accepted modern synth.  OFC selection doesn't bring wholesale changes in "kind" - not even evilutionists think so.  For that, you have to refer to the synth part - genetics.  Does some genetic variation cause an indivual or one population of individuals to be incapable of successfully interbreeding with another.  Why yes, yes it does.  As you so conveniently opined upon, by reference to horses and mules.   You take it upon yourself to refer to a "wholesale change in kind" and then casually claim that the theory which explains how this happens is wrong because it doesn't occur.  The idiocy is painful.

 Evolutionary scientist and their followers make the claim of wholes sale change, if not then micro-organisms would be all that roamed the muddy pools of this planet. you must have read my post wrong because I said it's been documented that on occasion mules will have an offspring if breed with a donkey. The result is not a new kind it's still of the horse family and always will be.

GC

---

I haven't said that, i said in the state of mind you have now you would ignore them. Here's one, probably the most important one in the Bible, John 3:16. Here are some more, Luke 1:68-69, Luke 2:30, Acts 4:12, 2nd Corinthians 6:2.


 You are demanding something from God and like I told Jesster it doesn't work that way. Isaiah 66:2 and Isaiah 57:15 this is the attitude you need to hear from God, the attitude you have now blocks your spirit from hearing God. Works will never save anyone but we must put forward an effort and seek. As I've said before I can't give you evidence that will suit your closed heart.

GC

I have a very open heart about these matters actually. I never demanded anything of god, I simply left it up to him to convince me if he felt I was worth saving. So far, I guess I'm just not worth it to him if he exists.

 Yes you have demanded from God, by saying He has to come to you and I'm telling you again that want help you. What will help you is the verses I gave you, you know the ones you said I wasn't sharing.

GC

[Minimalist]

The result is not a new kind it's still of the horse family and always will be.

Occasionally a mule breeds with a human and we end up with a jackass who thinks the bible is real.

[Astonished]

The result is not a new kind it's still of the horse family and always will be.

Occasionally a mule breeds with a human and we end up with a jackass who thinks the bible is real.

*Claps* That was brilliant, LOL. I can't find a thumbs-up smiley to accompany for some reason.

[vorlon13]

[The Grand Nudger]

 Evolutionary scientist and their followers make the claim of wholes sale change, if not then micro-organisms would be all that roamed the muddy pools of this planet.

They refer to speciation events, which is simply when one population becomes incapable of successfully interbreeding with another.  

you must have read my post wrong because I said it's been documented that on occasion mules will have an offspring if breed with a donkey. The result is not a new kind it's still of the horse family and always will be.

-as all speciated populations will -still- be "of the same kind" as their parent populations.  You're still an ape.  Horses and donkeys are both different species, differing chromosomes - this is precisely why their offspring are infertile, you see, but they share a "kind" (equidae). Mules are F1 hybrids produced by selection, same as literally everything you eat that grows out of the ground. The "on occasion" isn't a mystery either, it's when any given mule possesses chromosomal compatibility with a donkey. The disparity between them is precisely one fewer than with horses. So, it's a longshot, but less so than 64/62. It's also why a successful human chimp hybrid is unlikely to impossible, despite being "the same kind" - human beings having 46 (23 base pairs) and chimps have 48 (24). We have a fused telomere pair at chromosome 2 corresponding to chromosomes in other apes. It's doubled up, and we call it...wait for it...."the human chromosome".

Still accepting modern synth, you just don't know what it is or what it says. It's not as if you could reject it if you tried...it's just another strange thing you believe, in this case, about yourself. Genetics isn't the sort of thing that one gets to argue. It's demonstrable, as is selection. As is change over time..within and without "kinds".