Evidence for God from Science

crochet1949 wrote:So - Audie -- what about your thoughts regarding the birth of Jesus.

Top of pg 11, to be found with a modicum of effort on your part, you say " mock evrrything that you've come across within it" (the bible) followed by other invidious statements about "errors in most everything."

I challenged you to provide even one example of this mockery; you responded with something about definitions. Your "errors in most everything" comment is so unhinged from what I said about errors in science books that my doubt that you actually notice what I actually say is well justified. Sorry, but
you seldom get it, and like ab, concoct things to fill in the space.

And now off you go to another topic.

That is not " back it, of take it back". You've done neither.
I dont "mock everything". (Bible) You cannot give ONE EXAMPLE.

See you first line pg 11 about accusing!!

Now, I will respond to your Jesus question, sometime after you back up your "mock everything", or take back.

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:So - Audie -- what about your thoughts regarding the birth of Jesus.

Top of pg 11, to be found with a modicum of effort on your part, you say " mock evrrything that you've come across within it" (the bible) followed by other invidious statements about "errors in most everything."

I challenged you to provide even one example of this mockery; you responded with something about definitions. Your "errors in most everything" comment is so unhinged from what I said about errors in science books that my doubt that you actually notice what I actually say is well justified. Sorry, but
you seldom get it, and like ab, concoct things to fill in the space.

And now off you go to another topic.

That is not " back it, of take it back". You've done neither.
I dont "mock everything". (Bible) You cannot give ONE EXAMPLE.

See you first line pg 11 about accusing!!

Now, I will respond to your Jesus question, sometime after you back up your "mock everything", or take back.

I just went back to pg 11 as per your request. And then I've Googled 'mock' -- "to attack or treat with ridicule - contempt- derision.

And you DO make fun of what You consider to be stupid ideas -- other people's silliness.

So -- maybe you Don't 'attack' but you Do treat with ridicule / derision / contempt. Now maybe You don't interpret your comments as such -- but- if other's Do -- then you Might want to rethink how you Do respond to Some of us.

NO ONE likes to hear their ideas considered as Stupid. If you really Don't Care how your comments affect others, then
, well, that's Sad.

And, no one mocks Everything, but sometimes with some topics.

Rick: Audie knows I'm teasing. She's smart enough to get my sense of humor (even if she doesn't think I'm funny).

Don't count on it! Seems that some can relentlessly dish it out, but, well...

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:So - Audie -- what about your thoughts regarding the birth of Jesus.

Top of pg 11, to be found with a modicum of effort on your part, you say " mock evrrything that you've come across within it" (the bible) followed by other invidious statements about "errors in most everything."

I challenged you to provide even one example of this mockery; you responded with something about definitions. Your "errors in most everything" comment is so unhinged from what I said about errors in science books that my doubt that you actually notice what I actually say is well justified. Sorry, but
you seldom get it, and like ab, concoct things to fill in the space.

And now off you go to another topic.

That is not " back it, of take it back". You've done neither.
I dont "mock everything". (Bible) You cannot give ONE EXAMPLE.

See you first line pg 11 about accusing!!

Now, I will respond to your Jesus question, sometime after you back up your "mock everything", or take back.

I just went back to pg 11 as per your request. And then I've Googled 'mock' -- "to attack or treat with ridicule - contempt- derision.

And you DO make fun of what You consider to be stupid ideas -- other people's silliness.

So -- maybe you Don't 'attack' but you Do treat with ridicule / derision / contempt. Now maybe You don't interpret your comments as such -- but- if other's Do -- then you Might want to rethink how you Do respond to Some of us.

NO ONE likes to hear their ideas considered as Stupid. If you really Don't Care how your comments affect others, then
, well, that's Sad.

And, no one mocks Everything, but sometimes with some topics.

Perhaps you will choose to revisit this sometime, and think if you find you are being reasonable.
"Everything" and "nothing" are, after all, actually opposites.

"Everything' and 'nothing' are, after all, actually opposites" -------- depends on the context of their usage.

crochet1949 wrote:"Everything' and 'nothing' are, after all, actually opposites" -------- depends on the context of their usage.

You are correct crochet. But Audie does not deal with philosophy.* She is afraid to talk about it.*
It scares her because it's not in her "safe little box".*

*waiting for the, "howdareyou youdonotknowme stoplying" response from Audie.

RickD wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:"Everything' and 'nothing' are, after all, actually opposites" -------- depends on the context of their usage.

You are correct crochet. But Audie does not deal with philosophy.* She is afraid to talk about it.*
It scares her because it's not in her "safe little box".*

*waiting for the, "howdareyou youdonotknowme stoplying" response from Audie.

Good to see you clearly declare yourself a solid member of Ab's club.

There is no box that cannot be escaped with a few words like "context" or
"paradigm" or "interpretation". No dishonesty that is dishonourable.

Value it as you may, you did finally earn my contempt.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:"Everything' and 'nothing' are, after all, actually opposites" -------- depends on the context of their usage.

You are correct crochet. But Audie does not deal with philosophy.* She is afraid to talk about it.*
It scares her because it's not in her "safe little box".*

*waiting for the, "howdareyou youdonotknowme stoplying" response from Audie.

Good to see you clearly declare yourself a solid member of Ab's club.

There is no box that cannot be escaped with a few words like "context" or
"paradigm" or "interpretation". No dishonesty that is dishonourable.

Value it as you may, you did finally earn my contempt.

It would appear that we got our response.

Rick: Audie knows I'm teasing. She's smart enough to get my sense of humor (even if she doesn't think I'm funny).

Waiting, wait for it, wait...

Value it as you may, you did finally earn my contempt.

BOOM!

Philip wrote:

Rick: Audie knows I'm teasing. She's smart enough to get my sense of humor (even if she doesn't think I'm funny).

Waiting, wait for it, wait...

Value it as you may, you did finally earn my contempt.

BOOM!

Okay -- so --- Now what

Are we 'transitioning' out of this subject?!

There are no transitional fossils. They are all fully formed creatures. There is noway you could look at any fossil and claim it was evolving. This is because the fossils simply show many of the kinds of life that lived in the former world and they have nothing to do with life evolving.I'd like to see an evolutionist get up in front of an audience and try to explain how they know it was evolving. Because the evidence speaks for itself without anybody adding evolution imagination into it and they simply show life that lived in the former world. It was a different world than this world is based on the kinds of life we see that lived in it. We know the earth is old and not young too based on the layers of strata they are found in,the craters in the moon and how much evidence in coal and oil that reveals how much life has once lived on this earth,etc. Plenty of time for a former world.

crochet1949 wrote:Are we 'transitioning' out of this subject?!

I think there's simply too much of a gap between each side, so transitioning to any sort of agreement, probably won't evolve.

Yeah but that is only when it comes to creation. We all agree about Jesus,don't we. Creation is not as important but I just wish so many people were not hoodwinked to accept evolution and it seems like the church has no answers.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Yeah but that is only when it comes to creation. We all agree about Jesus,don't we. Creation is not as important but I just wish so many people were not hoodwinked to accept evolution and it seems like the church has no answers.

There Are answers.

Depending on the definition of 'the church' -- and Where the church is getting It's answers.

What are we all agreeing about in relation To Jesus?