Again, quite long!
arguments: " It's just a story that isn't proven to be true." And HOW do you know this?
Bible's chronology: the earth is 6,000 years old
Darwinism: no its millions years!!
Findings: Dinosaur soft tissue that wouldve decayed by now if there was no flood and the world was millisons years. This proves 1. millions years is a lie. 2. planetwide flood was real.
It's not too surprising if the Bible is the most scientific Book that isn't dedicated to science. Humans could just make those discoveries on their own. How could "bronze/iron age" people know that the "life is in the blood"?? And what about the dietary laws in Leviticus that would prevent disease?
I bet you will say "there is no evidence of dinosaur soft tissue, it's manmade!!" to protect the Chant of Ignorance that goes: "no evidence for God, God fake!"
"if they were perfect then they wouldn't ever be able to make any mistakes. Only someone that is flawed and fallible is able to make mistakes."
No. They CHOSE to break their perfection by rebelling. They knew full well what God said. So should God have created robots??
Adam and eve sinning is NOT an excuse for you to sin, too. God can and will set you free. If you choose sin then God will let you go on, but if you choose God then you will be liberated. Believe the Gospel.
""Also, it is immoral for a god or for anyone else" If Christianity is false, then why do you believe this? Morality originates from God. God has placed His Laws on your heart, but you cherrypick which ones to break and follow. Oh hey, the Bible is right again!
Romans 2:15 "in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them," You MUST take ideas from Christianity. This finding confirming this verse written 2,000+ years ago shows that God is the reason we and morality exist.
"to force other life forms into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will"
If something doesnt exist then how can it have a will? Your argument is nonsense. Psalm 14:1 "For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good."
The fact you used such a ridiculous argument PROVESS Psalm 14:1 RIGHT!! Christianity is strong, your view is wrong!!
"because they might not want to suffer against their will at all and that's why forcing them into existence is immoral and that's why I'm an antinatalist." If ya wanna stop suffering being a Christian is your best bet. Christianity is the ONLY SOLID foundation for loving God and loving other humans. Antinatalism is silly and fruitless, if your mom had your view you wouldnt be talking here. Be grateful that antinatalism is incorrect.
Jesus loves you, athiesm offers nothing. I hope our debate will make you a better person.
"
Suspicion razor: If a worldview raises up more tough questions, than has answers to them, then it is likely your belief is not true. "Be suspiscious" of beliefs that do it.
Christianity has more answers. Therefore it is untouched by this razor. However, probably all beliefs contradicting the Bible do this.
Secular views on the origin of life & the universe are, sadly, the dominant view in Western science. Christian Creation believers are suppressed and 'cancelled' when they question the main views. Athiesm is one of the biggest threats to humanity. Stalin, mao, marx (the kommunist one, not the funny ones) , hitler (evolutionist, NOT Christian. The 'Christian hiltler' argument is VERY easy to refute.), Mengels, Goebbels, and very likely china's Xi and KimJongUn of NKorea. The rotten fruits of athiesm and unBiblical origin stories crop up TIME and TIME again. On the other hand, Christianity and believing the Biblical origins revealed by Genesis bear so much good fruit. Examples, less sin, higher truth tendency, REAL free thought, advances in science (Newton, Pascal, the MRI inventor), and more. The Bible says, ""So then, you will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:20) The Bible is proven right time after time, and this is one of those times.
EVOLUTIONARY CENSORSHIP:
[[[Here's a retracted pro-evolution article from PLOS ONE, ("following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years") attacked by evolutionists just b/c it contradicted their worldview. This confirms Crev's claims of censorship. It sounds like a Thiestic Evolution paper. The bioevoists will even attack their own!
Pre-retraction: web.archive.org/web/20160303194250/https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0146193
The link between biochemical architecture and hand coordination was explained and its Inventor is the inventor of the Creator. So what?
Posted by TheMatrixDNA on 16 Mar 2016 at 14:21 GMT
This comment has been removed.
See? If you really think that Athiest "Nature-god" people will give ANY mercy to alternate viewpoints in their Castle, you are blind. "Actually, we would like to refer the word to another meaning like Nature (造化 in Chinese). " Calling it "nature god" is a valid accusation. "This retraction seems more like a punishment rather than a peer-review concern."
"The furor over the single mention of the word Creator in this paper is shocking! A huge mountain made out of a molehill. At best, the reactions show prejudicial bias. At worst, it can be considered intolerant and bigoted. I am thoroughly disgusted at the anti-scientific witch hunt that has taken place here! Retraction of the paper was bad enough, because it was not done for scientific reasons! If it was, you would have focused on the methodology, the data, and the conclusions, citing specific methodological flaws, or specific flaws in the data or conclusions, rather than ignore the science and zero in on the use of one word that by no means reflected the focus of the paper.
But firing the reviewing editor was not only total overkill, it looks vindictive, petty, and spiteful! He appears to have focused on the paper itself during his review, not allowing the one-time use of one word to distract him from the meat of the paper, and he did not deserve to be fired over his approval of this study. All you critics should have behaved in a more rational, open-minded, and tolerant way, and let the science presented speak for itself, rather than get your knickers in a knot because the paper contained one word you obviously couldn't stomach. You certainly did your scientific reputations no favours by over-reacting to it. And by insisting on the censorship of papers that use terms that offend your personal biases, you have transformed the term "peer review" from a term connoting quality control in scientific publications to a political term more suggestive of "peer pressure," which guarantees suppression of both innovative science and of scientists that deviate even slightly from the status quo. You have also undermined science itself, because true science is supposed to be dictated by the data. It is supposed to be free of personal bias and censorship. Innovative, groundbreaking discoveries don't come from those committed to the status quo and who practice and insist on consensus science. They come from those able and willing to think outside the box and to follow wherever the science leads. But who will be willing to practice science this way as long as the old school dinosaurs have the power to threaten their careers?
This above sounds like something a Bible-trusting Christian would say. And it's accurate.
By succumbing to hostile peer pressure and choosing to engage in a witch hunt, PLOS has revealed itself to be a journal prepared to do no more than merely rubber stamp the status quo, rather than one that fairly evaluates the evidence and boldly goes wherever it leads, no matter what. So it seems that in future, we need not expect much in the way of cutting edge, revolutionary new discoveries being first revealed in PLOS, as long as personal bias reigns supreme!"
By retracting this article for 'inappropriate language', you've just shown the world exactly how far 'behind the Iron Curtain' the world of secular academia has now fallen. Thank you so much, because you've just provided incontrovertible proof to the world that free debate and exchange is NOT open on the topic of the Creator, and any reference to a Creator will not be tolerated.
Free debate and exchange is certainly open on the topic of supernatural entities... just not in this particular forum. Such claims have no place in a scientific journal because they are not falsifiable and cannot be disproven.
Sorry, but that's a double standard. The claims of Darwinism about events spanning millions of years in the non-repeatable, non-observable past are ALSO not falsifiable; the history of Darwinism has proven this, as the theory has been constantly rewritten to attempt to 'account' for the consistent failure of the evidence to support the theory. This is nothing more than blatant censorship to maintain the hegemony of the 'ruling paradigm', which cannot stand on its own-- the evidence fails to support Darwinian naturalism. Those responsible will one day be held to account for what they've done.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comment?id=10.1371/annotation/10a580a2-8b5c-465f-a3e8-e4f4871425f2]]]
Strats vs ATHS:
question: 'What is the point in believing that we are monkeys?'
'If your worldview is true, why should we be moral? If we are made in the image of God, Bible-based morality is justified. But if we are just chemicals, why not act like everything else made of chemicals?'
question: "So you BELIEVE there's a 'lack' of evidence for God? What caused you to come to that conclusion?"
arguments: " It's just a story that isn't proven to be true." And HOW do you know this?
Bible's chronology: the earth is 6,000 years old
Darwinism: no its millions years!!
Findings: Dinosaur soft tissue that wouldve decayed by now if there was no flood and the world was millisons years. This proves 1. millions years is a lie. 2. planetwide flood was real.
It's not too surprising if the Bible is the most scientific Book that isn't dedicated to science. Humans could just make those discoveries on their own. How could "bronze/iron age" people know that the "life is in the blood"?? And what about the dietary laws in Leviticus that would prevent disease?
I bet you will say "there is no evidence of dinosaur soft tissue, it's manmade!!" to protect the Chant of Ignorance that goes: "no evidence for God, God fake!"
"if they were perfect then they wouldn't ever be able to make any mistakes. Only someone that is flawed and fallible is able to make mistakes."
No. They CHOSE to break their perfection by rebelling. They knew full well what God said. So should God have created robots??
Adam and eve sinning is NOT an excuse for you to sin, too. God can and will set you free. If you choose sin then God will let you go on, but if you choose God then you will be liberated. Believe the Gospel.
""Also, it is immoral for a god or for anyone else" If Christianity is false, then why do you believe this? Morality originates from God. God has placed His Laws on your heart, but you cherrypick which ones to break and follow. Oh hey, the Bible is right again!
Romans 2:15 "in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them," You MUST take ideas from Christianity. This finding confirming this verse written 2,000+ years ago shows that God is the reason we and morality exist.
"to force other life forms into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will"
If something doesnt exist then how can it have a will? Your argument is nonsense. Psalm 14:1 "For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good."
The fact you used such a ridiculous argument PROVESS Psalm 14:1 RIGHT!! Christianity is strong, your view is wrong!!
"because they might not want to suffer against their will at all and that's why forcing them into existence is immoral and that's why I'm an antinatalist." If ya wanna stop suffering being a Christian is your best bet. Christianity is the ONLY SOLID foundation for loving God and loving other humans. Antinatalism is silly and fruitless, if your mom had your view you wouldnt be talking here. Be grateful that antinatalism is incorrect.
Jesus loves you, athiesm offers nothing. I hope our debate will make you a better person.
"Suspicion razor: If a worldview raises up more tough questions, than has answers to them, then it is likely your belief is not true. "Be suspiscious" of beliefs that do it.
Christianity has more answers. Therefore it is untouched by this razor. However, probably all beliefs contradicting the Bible do this.
Secular views on the origin of life & the universe are, sadly, the dominant view in Western science. Christian Creation believers are suppressed and 'cancelled' when they question the main views. Athiesm is one of the biggest threats to humanity. Stalin, mao, marx (the kommunist one, not the funny ones) , hitler (evolutionist, NOT Christian. The 'Christian hiltler' argument is VERY easy to refute.), Mengels, Goebbels, and very likely china's Xi and KimJongUn of NKorea. The rotten fruits of athiesm and unBiblical origin stories crop up TIME and TIME again. On the other hand, Christianity and believing the Biblical origins revealed by Genesis bear so much good fruit. Examples, less sin, higher truth tendency, REAL free thought, advances in science (Newton, Pascal, the MRI inventor), and more. The Bible says, ""So then, you will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:20) The Bible is proven right time after time, and this is one of those times.
EVOLUTIONARY CENSORSHIP:
[[[Here's a retracted pro-evolution article from PLOS ONE, ("following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years") attacked by evolutionists just b/c it contradicted their worldview. This confirms Crev's claims of censorship. It sounds like a Thiestic Evolution paper. The bioevoists will even attack their own!
Pre-retraction: web.archive.org/web/20160303194250/https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0146193
The link between biochemical architecture and hand coordination was explained and its Inventor is the inventor of the Creator. So what?
Posted by TheMatrixDNA on 16 Mar 2016 at 14:21 GMT
This comment has been removed.
See? If you really think that Athiest "Nature-god" people will give ANY mercy to alternate viewpoints in their Castle, you are blind. "Actually, we would like to refer the word to another meaning like Nature (造化 in Chinese). " Calling it "nature god" is a valid accusation. "This retraction seems more like a punishment rather than a peer-review concern."
"The furor over the single mention of the word Creator in this paper is shocking! A huge mountain made out of a molehill. At best, the reactions show prejudicial bias. At worst, it can be considered intolerant and bigoted. I am thoroughly disgusted at the anti-scientific witch hunt that has taken place here! Retraction of the paper was bad enough, because it was not done for scientific reasons! If it was, you would have focused on the methodology, the data, and the conclusions, citing specific methodological flaws, or specific flaws in the data or conclusions, rather than ignore the science and zero in on the use of one word that by no means reflected the focus of the paper.
But firing the reviewing editor was not only total overkill, it looks vindictive, petty, and spiteful! He appears to have focused on the paper itself during his review, not allowing the one-time use of one word to distract him from the meat of the paper, and he did not deserve to be fired over his approval of this study. All you critics should have behaved in a more rational, open-minded, and tolerant way, and let the science presented speak for itself, rather than get your knickers in a knot because the paper contained one word you obviously couldn't stomach. You certainly did your scientific reputations no favours by over-reacting to it. And by insisting on the censorship of papers that use terms that offend your personal biases, you have transformed the term "peer review" from a term connoting quality control in scientific publications to a political term more suggestive of "peer pressure," which guarantees suppression of both innovative science and of scientists that deviate even slightly from the status quo. You have also undermined science itself, because true science is supposed to be dictated by the data. It is supposed to be free of personal bias and censorship. Innovative, groundbreaking discoveries don't come from those committed to the status quo and who practice and insist on consensus science. They come from those able and willing to think outside the box and to follow wherever the science leads. But who will be willing to practice science this way as long as the old school dinosaurs have the power to threaten their careers?
This above sounds like something a Bible-trusting Christian would say. And it's accurate.
By succumbing to hostile peer pressure and choosing to engage in a witch hunt, PLOS has revealed itself to be a journal prepared to do no more than merely rubber stamp the status quo, rather than one that fairly evaluates the evidence and boldly goes wherever it leads, no matter what. So it seems that in future, we need not expect much in the way of cutting edge, revolutionary new discoveries being first revealed in PLOS, as long as personal bias reigns supreme!"
By retracting this article for 'inappropriate language', you've just shown the world exactly how far 'behind the Iron Curtain' the world of secular academia has now fallen. Thank you so much, because you've just provided incontrovertible proof to the world that free debate and exchange is NOT open on the topic of the Creator, and any reference to a Creator will not be tolerated.
Free debate and exchange is certainly open on the topic of supernatural entities... just not in this particular forum. Such claims have no place in a scientific journal because they are not falsifiable and cannot be disproven.
Sorry, but that's a double standard. The claims of Darwinism about events spanning millions of years in the non-repeatable, non-observable past are ALSO not falsifiable; the history of Darwinism has proven this, as the theory has been constantly rewritten to attempt to 'account' for the consistent failure of the evidence to support the theory. This is nothing more than blatant censorship to maintain the hegemony of the 'ruling paradigm', which cannot stand on its own-- the evidence fails to support Darwinian naturalism. Those responsible will one day be held to account for what they've done.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article/comment?id=10.1371/annotation/10a580a2-8b5c-465f-a3e8-e4f4871425f2]]]
Strats vs ATHS:
question: 'What is the point in believing that we are monkeys?'
'If your worldview is true, why should we be moral? If we are made in the image of God, Bible-based morality is justified. But if we are just chemicals, why not act like everything else made of chemicals?'
question: "So you BELIEVE there's a 'lack' of evidence for God? What caused you to come to that conclusion?"
