Ego’s reply: I’m in bold.
On cutting and pasting. Again, it’s moot.. Cutting and pasting is ok, Says Ego and no one else, but since he says it’s all right, it must be all right. He is always right in his own eyes. it’s the critics that don’t think so. And you think critics and scholars are always wrong because some of them don’t share the same dogmatic beliefs as you do. And the amount I quote verses the little you do, who determines that too much pasting is wrong? Plagiarism detectors do. You? I don’t think so. And I have and can ask questions, but don’t think that when you write something it’s all formulated on its own. Of course, my arguments are based on certain facts and theories, but I have my own explanations for them. Google my theories. I don’t think you’ll find them anywhere else. Scientists would not publish them. Yeah, anyone that reads your explanation on evolution knows you are repeating what you have read. If you didn’t read what evolutionist have said concerning any of the theories they argue then you wouldn’t have anything to say. For example.. You know what speciation is about, you know what natural selection is about, and you know that evolution teaches man has common ancestry with humans. Now how do you know this information, because you read it, and you think it makes more sense then the bible? Because of the solid evidence, such as the existence of a culture before the development of Homo sapiens. And that is why I see you as a hypocrite on this issue. Look at the hypocrite calling others hypocrites. At least Ego learned to spell it correctly this time. You accuse me of not being able to formulate an argument, but then you argue and use the same terms evolutionist use. Why not use terms and make up what you are seeing around you instead of letting the evolutionist dictate to you what species means, There is a clear ‘evolutionist’ definition of species which makes total sense. How about you give me the Bible interpretation then? Homo neanderthalensis had their own culture, but we sure can’t breed with them. How do you explain them? Are they still ‘mindless animals’ even if they have burials, cave paintings and the like? How does the Bible interpret Neanderthals? Or are they the same species even though they cannot breed with us? or interpreting the fossil record and you agreeing with them rather then seeing that none of those things were observed changing, Considering evolution takes millions of years, and scientific study has been around for about a thousand, it’s a little hard to observe the changes. However, smaller changes do occur. Note the moths in industrial Britain. they are practicing homology and try to connect the dots with genetics looking for similarities there to say “oh a bacteria evolved into a trilobite” without direct evidence, just a pipe dream. You’re pointing at an indefinite blob and saying that it’s artwork when you insist that the world was created in seven days without direct evidence except the hypothesis that the Bible is solid history; just a ‘pipe dream’, as you said.
Right I’m plagiarizing, no, I’m pasting information that I agree with and have the same exact view on the issue. Here is another example since you have a hard time understanding.
Believers have the Spirit of Christ, the hope of glory within them (Colossians 1:27). Those who walk in the Spirit will show forth daily, moment-by-moment holiness. This is brought about by consciously choosing by faith to rely on the Holy Spirit to guide in thought, word, and deed (Romans 6:11-14). That does not mean that you have Christ’s mind. It’s more like if you truly believe, Christ’s spirit will guide you but not take away your free will. His way will influence your thinking, speech and actions, but He will not take over your body and make you His zombie. To think that you are speaking directly for Christ is blasphemy. I talked to a Southern Baptist about it.
Now where I got this information from is relevant, Of course it is relevant. You have to cite your sources, even if it’s a source about God which I believe is riddled with human error. Just because Paul is blessed doesn’t mean that Christ takes over and makes his free will obsolete. because I agree with this cut and pasted text. It’s exactly how I view the bible. That the verses in question I agree with what is said in the context of who wrote it. There is nothing wrong with that. If an evolutionist explains speciation and I cut and paste it directly from talkorgins, I have not seen one person who is an evolutionist criticize their fellow evolutionist about cutting and pasting material from talkorgins, not once. So it depends on what is being pasted because your people practice double standards. Quote what Richard Dawkins says as dogma, For your information, just because I’m an evolutionist doesn’t mean I like Richard Dawkins. He’s free to believe what he believes, but he commits the atheist version of your crime; ramming his beliefs down people’s throats and insisting that he’s right without enough proof. but when I paste or quote someone as dogma, like Paul, Jesus, or another fellow Believer who is thinking along the same lines.. I’m not thinking for myself. Who are you to judge with your double standards? Considering what I just said, that point is moot. Your augments My what? If I could have augmentation, I would. Five foot one isn’t very tall. for evolution sound exactly like what I have read on evolutionary websites, no different. Oh, you’ll find it quite different. I mention God a bit too much for the standard evolutionist’s liking. If you say ‘God initiated evolution’, most people look at you as if you’re potty because ’Christians’ don’t believe in evolution. That is another stereotype–enforced by your kind, of course.
Your friends that cut and paste a link for me to read the material they agree with. Someone posted a link giving 15 reasons about the foolishness of creationist arguments, but where is your attack on that? A link is all right. But clogging up someone’s page with the stuff? Why don’t you give me the link to your stuff? It’s all from the AiG website anyway. What’s the difference is they didn’t post the writing in the blog; they just gave me the link to read it. If it makes you happy, I can post the links instead of pasting it here if that helps your mind ease a little. There is no difference, and like I care about your judgement of it.
Yeah.. Again, mocking someone’s spelling rather than understand that you have been corrected on what repentance actually is compared to your way of thinking for yourself. I have not been ‘corrected’ on repentance; rather I have been given another interpretation. I’ll go with my movie, thank you very much. “Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves.” ~ the Hospitaller in Kingdom of Heaven. I’ll believe someone is a follower of Christ when they show me through their actions, not through their dogmatic preaching. Tell me to repent all you want, and I’ll tell you to repent and turn to the rational way of thinking.
It’s ok to think and be critical, but don’t come up with something that isn’t what repentance is based on the language of the culture. So where did you get your definition, if not from an English dictionary? Considering your level of English (and English being your native language, unless you’re an immigrant), I’ll bet you don’t know any more Greek than I do. I bet you didn’t know that the word destroy used in certain contexts of Scripture doesn’t mean the same as destroy in English. I have seen critics say that God said he would destroy a nation but when they read about that nation later they assumed that the language of destroy meant to wipe out, but that is due to not understanding Hebrew use of destroy for example.. Just like what you do with defining words using none Hebrew or Greek understanding. And you have understanding of Greek and Hebrew?
Yeah, continue to mock rather than answer the question.. Yeah, that shows a lot about your evasiveness. You’re being sporked; of course I’m mocking you.
On your last nonsense statement: Last? There was a whole lot after that.
You said:
All right, let’s do a poll and see how many people support you. You do realize that the reason why so many people are mocking the Creation Museum, atheist, Christian, Jew and Muslim alike, is because they do believe it is utterly ridiculous?
My reply is in red: Actually, it’s in black…
People mock the Creation Museum because they don’t agree with it, no surprise why would they not mock it? Kind of like me mocking evolution (macro) because I don’t agree with it. And the majority don’t believe in Jesus, what is that suppose to make me second guess what I believe? I don’t think so. And mock atheists? Ok, why would you include the atheist belief in the same context as the groups you mention that believe in Creation? Because there are atheists who don’t believe in evolution; some of them believe that the whole earth is an alien experiment. Of course, those are as nutty as you are, if you ask me.
And I don’t care if people think creation is stupid, So you shouldn’t care if I say you’re stupid, right? there are those that think bacteria can magically become a trilobite without direct evidence is foolish, or that theorization that we came from outer space because attempts at the origin of life experiments failed Those think more or less in the same way as you do. so theorize it came from beyond. So let’s theorize and say that the world was created in seven days because one book said so, and it happens so that many treat every word in it as being real.
This is a post-modern world there are difference of opinions.. No surprise there, why would it be all the same? So why do you insist on ramming your opinions down my throat and then say that you are ‘correcting’ me? Egotistical…fill in your own word here. I’m much too well-bred to say it.
And our popularity opinion poll this is what it’s called in logical thinking the argument you are putting forth about popularity wins. And I’ll add another fallacy you are arguing.
One argument about polls the argument is called: Argumentum ad Populum
The other argument you are using when people call creationism ridiculous it’s called: Fallacy of Composition. And when people call evolution ridiculous, it is also called ‘fallacy of composition’. Of course I can tell you pasted this from somewhere. ‘Fallacy’ is spelled correctly.
You might want to look those up. What pasting those words, means what, that I’m plagiarizing LOL.. Ok… can’t do that. Or can I, since I pasted one line argumentum ad populum so that makes it illogical. Cite sources, always. Otherwise, no matter how little you paste, it’s still plagiarism. Academic culture, this. Of course, considering your level of education, I really can’t expect you to know it, so I’ll let it go this time, eh?
And by the way while I was reading this reply, I noticed you misspelled words and had bad grammar, Evidence? Show me. but I’m not going to make a big deal out of it. Unlike yourself. What do you say to people that I know who write really badly because of dyslexia? And I know of someone with dyslexia who tries so hard that he gets to write a foreword for a book. No, he’s not a fundamentalist like you.
Give an example of me sidestepping orthodoxy. I’m curious because I don’t see your point.
You always say that ‘orthodoxy’ is what you believe. However, you do not believe in the same thing as the Catholic orthodoxy dictates. Catholic orthodoxy has decreed that the Bible is more symbolic than actual history.
And you should read the quote Augustine said and I’ll paraphrase it. He said “in Essentials we have Unity, in Non-Essentials we have Liberty, but in All things Love” We don’t even have unity in essentials, Ego. I don’t believe in your brand of Christianity. Your idea that everyone who isn’t Christian should become Christian rubs me the wrong way. Your idea that Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and pagans aren’t as good as Christians makes me furious. Your idea that your way is the only way makes me grit my teeth. Your adherence to twelfth century scholasticism makes my jaw drop in incredulity.
So I’m assuming we are disagreeing about non-essentials, but I’ll wait to see what you are talking about sidestepping orthodoxy.
