GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-27-2012, 14:48   #41
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
satan manipulates just about anything he wants to within what is allowed him. We can look behind the curtain a bit to see how he is allowed to go only so far.

Job 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
So Satan has manipulated the fossil and geological record as well as the whole of biology to give the illusion of evolution? Or does he somehow possess the minds of all who study those fields to make them unilaterally agree on evolution? This is directly related to the topic of my thread so a somewhat less than vague answer would be nice.
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 15:55   #42
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 11,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altaris View Post
Wasn’t satan around before the bible was written by imperfect humans? So you are saying there is no way he could have edited it before it was even written? Or that there was no way he could have manipulated the uneducated farmers into writing something different?
God protected His Word. satan has been allowed to spin it, but not change it.

Here is an example:

Luke 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
4:11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

satan quoted scripture and left the part out to keep thee in all thy ways. This puts the spin on it that God will protect us from willful acts of our own like jumping off a tall building.

Psalms 91:11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Vic Hays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 15:57   #43
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,843
I am afraid that lots of people here just don't get it. If it was easy to believe in God anyone could do it and then how could God tell which humans were worth saving and which weren't? So God needed to manufacture a whole lot of misleading facts to make it harder to believe in God or he had to get some other supernatural entity to do so. The second option was obviously superior because Satan would be able to use his own initiative to keep producing misleading facts that would lead people to create false theories and save God the iritation of having to do it all himself.

I hope this helps misguided people like AG, AM and others to understand the true nature of things.

I hope it helps people like Vic Hayes to be more sympathetic towards Darwin who started out as the ordained son of an ordained Minister and after half a lifetime of dicovering Satan's facts and experiencing the painful and drawn out death of his daughter lost his faith. Even then it was many more years before he published the Origin of Species because he did not want to offend religious people. But friends who had also been led astray by Satan's facts persuaded him to do so from the sin of pride as otherwise Wallace would have been known to history as the founder of the theory of evolution.

We can only hope that God, who is said to be merciful to some, though no one really knows because no one can know the mind of God, has not sent Darwin to Hell for what was little more than an equiring mind and the ability to connect a multitude of facts with a theory which was contrary to the received wisdom of the age.

English

PS I forgot the point of this thread. The above explains why science looks like a conspiracy of scientists but is not. The conspiracy belongs to God and Satan and the majority of scientists have just been fooled by Satan's excelent deceptions. Incidentally, Satan is getting more and more stressed as the number of scientists grows exponentially and keep thinking up new ideas which Satan then has to manufacture evidence for. This could be a race against time! Will the science overload crack Satan before the Day of Judgement? What will scientists do when new theories which are consistent with all previous facts do not fid the new facts they predict. Will scientists blow the whole conspiracy and tell everyone that God does exist after all and to start believing very strongly before it is too late.

Tomorrow, or next year, the latest developments in this thrilling tale.

Last edited by English; 02-27-2012 at 16:09..
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 16:11   #44
lomfs24
Senior Member
 
lomfs24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 4,838
Send a message via AIM to lomfs24 Send a message via Yahoo to lomfs24
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
So God needed to manufacture a whole lot of misleading facts to make it harder to believe in God
So God lied to us to see which people needed to be saved?
Quote:
or he had to get some other supernatural entity to do so. The second option was obviously superior because Satan would be able to use his own initiative to keep producing misleading facts that would lead people to create false theories and save God the iritation of having to do it all himself.
Ah, God was lazy so he created the minions to do his dirt work of lying.

Do you really believe this crock?
Quote:
I hope this helps misguided people like AG, AM and others to understand the true nature of things.
I think the misguided are probably a lot smarter than you hoped for.
Quote:
I hope it helps people like Vic Hayes to be more sympathetic towards Darwin who started out as the ordained son of an ordained Minister and after half a lifetime of dicovering Satan's facts and experiencing the painful and drawn out death of his daughter lost his faith. Even then it was many more years before he published the Origin of Species because he did not want to offend religious people. But friends who had also been led astray by Satan's facts persuaded him to do so from the sin of pride as otherwise Wallace would have been known to history as the founder of the theory of evolution.
I would hope that people like Vic would be smart enough to see through this.
Quote:
We can only hope that God, who is said to be merciful to some, though no one really knows because no one can know the mind of God, has not sent Darwin to Hell for what was little more than an equiring mind and the ability to connect a multitude of facts with a theory which was contrary to the received wisdom of the age.

English
I would hope that God wouldn't lie to us to get his story told.
__________________
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. ~Proverbs 14:15

Last edited by lomfs24; 02-27-2012 at 16:11..
lomfs24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 16:15   #45
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 37,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
For the members here that believe the study of evolution is inherently flawed, I have a question. Is everyone involved in paleontology, geology and many more fields too numerous to mention in on the conspiracy?
What's the point? - fact evidence can't overcome faith, otherwise it would be called "fact" instead of "faith." I can get into debating many things, but debating against creationism gets old quick. It's like debating alien abductions with guys wearing tinfoil hates to ward them off. In the end, they will believe what they want to believe, not what evidence supports, otherwise they'd be on your side to begin with.

Interesting though - faith is, by definition, believing in something not supported by evidence. How is that not funny?
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.

Last edited by Bren; 02-27-2012 at 16:17..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 16:29   #46
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
What's the point? - fact evidence can't overcome faith, otherwise it would be called "fact" instead of "faith." I can get into debating many things, but debating against creationism gets old quick. It's like debating alien abductions with guys wearing tinfoil hates to ward them off. In the end, they will believe what they want to believe, not what evidence supports, otherwise they'd be on your side to begin with.

Interesting though - faith is, by definition, believing in something not supported by evidence. How is that not funny?
The point is to expose the same old tired lies that we hear over and over again. It's like politics, you have those on each side and those in the middle who are undecided. When the undecided see someone say something misleading or downright stupid like, "My roller skate evolved into a skateboard" or "The odds of life starting out on it's own are astronomical" then there should be someone there to provide the more rational argument. Those people are the biggest reason that religion is loosing it's grasp in the educated world and churches are being forced to look to places like Africa to find people to exploit.
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 16:54   #47
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by lomfs24 View Post
So God lied to us to see which people needed to be saved?
Ah, God was lazy so he created the minions to do his dirt work of lying.

Do you really believe this crock?
I think the misguided are probably a lot smarter than you hoped for.
I would hope that people like Vic would be smart enough to see through this.
I would hope that God wouldn't lie to us to get his story told.
lomfs24,
No I don't believe a word of it. I was just trying to put the implications of what Vic Hayes and others have been telling us about the relationship between facts, theories and truth more clearly. Read what they have been saying about Satan planting evidence to lead us astray. Consider that if God is as powerful as they claim then he could destroy Satan if he wished and therefore we must assume that Satan has a useful purpose to God. What do you think it could be? I believe the Bible tells us that faith must over ride reason, but scientists everywhere are lettting reason over ride faith. That is directly contrary to what is claimed to be the word of God and must therefore be qualified as evil or sinful - I confess I am not up on the precise definitions of these things as I have trusted reason above faith since the age of about 9.

On your last sentence; why should you presume any such thing? Do you think you could know the mind of God. By definition it is unknowable and so you can't understand his strategy or even what to do to please him if you assume he exists.

English
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 21:00   #48
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 11,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
I am afraid that lots of people here just don't get it. If it was easy to believe in God anyone could do it and then how could God tell which humans were worth saving and which weren't? So God needed to manufacture a whole lot of misleading facts to make it harder to believe in God or he had to get some other supernatural entity to do so. The second option was obviously superior because Satan would be able to use his own initiative to keep producing misleading facts that would lead people to create false theories and save God the iritation of having to do it all himself.
Actually God allows those who would rather believe a lie to find one that suits them. There is plenty of philosophy and deception to go around.


2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

BTW No one has answered how many times did living cells or whatever have to evolve before one figured out how to reproduce itself. Certainly science with all of its knowledge can give a definitive answer. Science is infallible right?
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Last edited by Vic Hays; 02-27-2012 at 21:02..
Vic Hays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 21:35   #49
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,957
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
BTW No one has answered how many times did living cells or whatever have to evolve before one figured out how to reproduce itself. Certainly science with all of its knowledge can give a definitive answer.
I know that critical thinking isn't exactly your forte, but you have to at least try. Given your proclaimed interest in science, how would you suggest science would go about answering that question? What evidence would you suppose would have been left behind with a reasonable chance of being discovered?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
Science is infallible right?
Who is making this claim, or should we just file this under "Strawmen, Creationist"? Infallible... you must be thinking of the Bible.

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 22:14   #50
lomfs24
Senior Member
 
lomfs24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 4,838
Send a message via AIM to lomfs24 Send a message via Yahoo to lomfs24
Quote:
Originally Posted by English View Post
lomfs24,
No I don't believe a word of it.
OK, just so we are on the same page.
That being said, the rest of this is arguing just to argue, right? And doesn't really need to be addressed? I mean, we might as well be arguing over the facts and theories of pixie dust.

Quote:
I was just trying to put the implications of what Vic Hayes and others have been telling us about the relationship between facts, theories and truth more clearly. Read what they have been saying about Satan planting evidence to lead us astray. Consider that if God is as powerful as they claim then he could destroy Satan if he wished and therefore we must assume that Satan has a useful purpose to God. What do you think it could be? I believe the Bible tells us that faith must over ride reason, but scientists everywhere are lettting reason over ride faith. That is directly contrary to what is claimed to be the word of God and must therefore be qualified as evil or sinful - I confess I am not up on the precise definitions of these things as I have trusted reason above faith since the age of about 9.

On your last sentence; why should you presume any such thing? Do you think you could know the mind of God. By definition it is unknowable and so you can't understand his strategy or even what to do to please him if you assume he exists.

English
My last sentence was placed there to add emphasis to my previous statements. In one place believers spout that God cannot lie. But in another place say
Quote:
So God needed to manufacture a whole lot of misleading facts to make it harder to believe in God.
Now it is apparent that I misunderstood the context of your comment. But, none the less, I have heard that exact same argument in trying to discredit evolution.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled arguing.
__________________
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. ~Proverbs 14:15
lomfs24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2012, 22:24   #51
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 20,607


Wrong forum
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 05:25   #52
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 37,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
The point is to expose the same old tired lies that we hear over and over again. It's like politics, you have those on each side and those in the middle who are undecided. When the undecided see someone say something misleading or downright stupid like, "My roller skate evolved into a skateboard" or "The odds of life starting out on it's own are astronomical" then there should be someone there to provide the more rational argument. Those people are the biggest reason that religion is loosing it's grasp in the educated world and churches are being forced to look to places like Africa to find people to exploit.
Many years ago, I was a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and other skeptical groups. Then I realized fighting against religion, in one of the most religiously saturated 1st world countries on earth, is almost as big a waste of time in my life as being religious. Same with other issues I was tempted to be an activist about, in my younger days. I just got tired of it.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 10:42   #53
English
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: London
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by lomfs24 View Post
OK, just so we are on the same page.
That being said, the rest of this is arguing just to argue, right? And doesn't really need to be addressed? I mean, we might as well be arguing over the facts and theories of pixie dust.

...
I actually think arguing about religion is just the same as arguing about the facts and theories of pixie dust. I wasn't really arguing just to argue but to point out the inconsistencies in the present religious argument. That is quite separate from the religious failure to understand the meaning of "proof", "theories", "evidence", and a determined refusal to investigate the evidence of science.

English

Last edited by English; 02-29-2012 at 05:34..
English is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 17:20   #54
Vic Hays
Senior Member
 
Vic Hays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: My home is in heaven
Posts: 11,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
I know that critical thinking isn't exactly your forte, but you have to at least try. Given your proclaimed interest in science, how would you suggest science would go about answering that question? What evidence would you suppose would have been left behind with a reasonable chance of being discovered?

-ArtificialGrape
No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?
__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Last edited by Vic Hays; 02-28-2012 at 17:23..
Vic Hays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 18:15   #55
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,450


I look forward to seeing all my athiests friends at the upcoming Vast Evolutionary Conspiracy Annual Convention in Vegas next month!



(Oops, was I not supposed to mention that?)
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Geko45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 18:18   #56
lomfs24
Senior Member
 
lomfs24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Montana
Posts: 4,838
Send a message via AIM to lomfs24 Send a message via Yahoo to lomfs24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?
Vic, could you take a moment out of your busy day and quickly explain to me, in your own words, the difference between a "fact" and a "theory". You seem to interchange them regularly without realizing that they are two very different concepts.
Quote:
I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.
Yep, that's how science works, only scientists take it a step further. You pick a part of the theory of evolution that you feel is incorrect, and you set out to disprove it. Once accomplished the theory will have been toppled. As of yet, that has not been accomplished. Which means, the theory still stands. Unfortunately, the book of Genesis does not constitute scientific proof to topple evolution.

Now, before you start in about frauds there is somethings you should know about frauds. If they were a fraud they were never really part of the theory of evolution, even if they were presented that way. And if you work hard at discrediting a fraud, you have not toppled the theory of evolution, you have toppled the fraud.
__________________
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. ~Proverbs 14:15
lomfs24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 18:42   #57
Gunhaver
the wrong hands
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,736
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?
I actually did know that. That was the Cambrian period and was the most interesting of them all IMO because of the lack of data we have from that time. It lasted about 55 million years and the thing is, the further back you look the less evidence there is so we don't have as much information about that time as we do about the more popular dinosaur rich Mesozoic era. The features used to classify animals are much more apparent in larger, more recent vertebral critters than in the simple soft bodied swimmers that left less behind to be fossilized. It's only because of mass underwater mudslides that buried entire acres of animals at once like in the Burgess shale that we know what little we do.

So yes, the Phyla mostly appeared in the same period. That period happened to last 55 million years which is a good long run on any time scale where a lot can happen. Also consider the relative simplicity of the animals that developed during that time and it's no more unusual than any other period.

And speaking of the Burgess shale, did you know that not only is there not a single creature found there that is still alive today but also no hint of any vertebral animal, no terrestrial animals and not a single leaf or terrestrial plant fossil to be found in that geological layer. It's as if life didn't exist on land at all during that time period and not a single animal had developed a backbone yet. Now how do you suppose that is?
Gunhaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 18:48   #58
muscogee
Senior Member
 
muscogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,841


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.
There is somewhat more room to doubt Genesis. Do you really believe snakes used to walk around and talk to people?
__________________
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Leona Helmsley
muscogee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2012, 21:44   #59
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 15,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?
The fact is that evolution makes no such claim, and IN FACT evolution has nothing to do with life arising from inorganic matter.
Quote:

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.
I have no doubt you do think that. If only because you'te totally clueless (demonstrated above) about what evolution IS.

Quote:
I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.
Interestingly enough, the folks that study evolution for a living never heard of that either...

Quote:
So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?
Some might suppose its presented as a tree because that's what the theory says. Kudos for not letting facts sneak into your arguments. Even the hint of propriety must be scrupulously avoided.

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-29-2012, 00:05   #60
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,957
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?
Who is calling evolution "a fact that cannot be questioned"? You will find sacrosanct within religion, not science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.
Doubt (skepticism) can be healthy, but not when it becomes nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period.
There are many untrue things that I do not "know". Could you elaborate on this "same period". If you're referring to the Cambrian Explosion, this "explosion" took place over an 80 million year span (600 to 520 million years ago) which is hardly over the same period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.
Any chance that you would like to share current research where this evolutionary lawn model is still advanced? The notion of an evolutionary lawn was generally within the echinoderms, and not "all of the Phyla" that you have claimed, and by the mid 1980s it was pretty clearly inaccurate. Though I welcome being proven wrong -- it's an opportunity to learn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Hays View Post
So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?
I would suppose that the tree is presented to neophytes because it is the most accurate depiction of how evolution progresses -- you may want to start over with a primer.

Why do you suppose that so many Creationists are determined to bear false witness against evolution?

You're not holding a grudge that fellow Seventh-Day Adventist George Price had his Flood Geology so thoroughly refuted by reality are you? Or worse yet, you're not still clinging to his New Geology, are you?

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:01.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,095
347 Members
748 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31