Moderator: Moderators
I await the evidence.arian wrote: I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.
.. as in the Catholic Jesuit Georges Lemaitre's divined insight on the creation of the universe by a quantum speck of '100 years later we still don't know what it was?' that exploded and is supposedly expanding unobserved Big-Bang story.KenRU wrote: [Replying to post 488 by arian]
Dictionary.com: (bold added for my emphasis)
Religion: noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,
.. like Nazism, Communism, Agenda 21, .. right?Dictionary.com wrote:especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
.. Evolution Religion, Big-bang Religion, Human genome religions, Christian Religions, .. that's right, but NOT my "Scientific Evidence of the Creator", .. you noticed I removed the 'undeniable' part because I realized that people who don't believe in absolutes could deny the nose on their face and stick with, and argue that 'belief' till kingdom-come. "I have no nose, .. it all started 13.75 billion years ago, .." and claim it as science.Dictionary.com wrote:2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Again, you speak 'from' religious POV, there is no indication in the Bible that the letters and little books were holy, or sacred. So I don't know what religious sect made those definitions, but that is wrong. We know that religion can take a book, a rock, a piece of wood which half they use to heat their stove, and the other half they create a 'sacred and holy' object of worship with it.Dictionary.com wrote:Bible: noun
1. the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.
I wish you had, but here we are still trying to define what religion means? Do words like 'God, .. Bible, Jesus, John, Matthew, Bill Gates, Norman Freeman etc.' automatically mean religion? I say it doesn't but of course you will turn to religious dictionaries that will define anything and everything as an object of worship. That's why Movie-Stars, Singers are called 'idols', because they are worshipped. Like I said, it truly is hard to define anything today without it being tagged as a religion!? Especially now that science has been completely abolished and replaced with a religion. Now even billion year old stories are considered science.KenRU wrote:I rest my case.
look, you keep defining Christian as a religion right? So what are you really telling me here? Is it that calling your malicious intent in distorting a book like the Bible and labeling it as a 'religious book' wasn't very religious of me? Or are you referring to a persons teaching in the Bible, like Jesus Christ for instance, that me pointing out your malicious intent in debasing, redefining object like a book and names/tittles in a book and calling them religious symbols because religions use whatever they can land their hands on, stone, wood, paper, books and worship it religiously?KenRU wrote:PS, I'm still waiting for you to address calling me (or specifically, my intent) "malicious". It wasn't very Christian of you.
Correction: YOU are still attempting to RE-define what religion means to fit your "argument" (whatever that might be).arian wrote: . . . here we are still trying to define what religion means . . .
I respectfully decline the invitation to participate in flights of fantasy, imagination and wishful thinking. The real world is far more appealing and I prefer to deal effectively with real situations and people encountered rather than with thoughts about demons, mysterious men, UFO sightings and "them" being out to get me or conspiring against me.arian wrote: Yes, .. yes, .. yes .. now if you could only comprehend what you just said and we'd be on our way to the next step, .. the 'creating' part, right after imagination and wishful thinking.
The argument is to go back to the time when words had definite meanings, like the word gay for instance. Do I have to accept being thought of as a homosexual every time I express myself that I'm happy/ using the word gay?
But then how else would have all the technological advancements come about if not wishful thinking and flights of fantasy??Zzyzx wrote:I respectfully decline the invitation to participate in flights of fantasy, imagination and wishful thinking.arian wrote: Yes, .. yes, .. yes .. now if you could only comprehend what you just said and we'd be on our way to the next step, .. the 'creating' part, right after imagination and wishful thinking.
Oh Z, .. you have no idea how I wish at times to just climb up in a high lush tree, find a nice strong branch to lay on and relax, not thinking about all them demons, mysterious men, UFO sightings like that meteor-like creature that attacked me, and especially "them" being out to get me or conspiring against me. The only problem is that, like lions, once they target you, they will hunt you till they kill you, .. and they can climb trees. They are relentless Z, but I have faith in that; "a rest remaineth for the weary"Zzyzx wrote:The real world is far more appealing and I prefer to deal effectively with real situations and people encountered rather than with thoughts about demons, mysterious men, UFO sightings and "them" being out to get me or conspiring against me.
Well I don't know Z, but that's not what I get from your persistent stand on your faith? Besides, I doubt any wise man in history really believed that their later taken as profound and Earth-shaking words, were actually planned as such. So we speak, and the rest is: "Kay sera, sera!" right?Zzyzx wrote:I have no delusions that my thinking or my words are profound or Earth-shaking. If anything I say is useful to someone, fine. If not, fine.
Well I don't know about that either, i mean if I was about to be put under prepped for a surgery and found out Dr. Mengele who believed in the Evolution religion was my surgeon, .. it most certainly would be important in 'my LIFE'.Zzyzx wrote:Makes no difference to me – not selling / promoting anything – not claiming special knowledge – don't care how the universe originated or life began (since such knowledge is not of any importance in conduct of real life).
When was that time of definite meanings?arian wrote: The argument is to go back to the time when words had definite meanings . . .
Who, exactly, has told people they were not human?arian wrote: Like people throughout history believed they were humans and not animals, right? But in the last hundred years they've been told that actually they NEVER were just human, but were always evolving animals of a particular ape family.
Kindly cite examples of "absolutes" when there ARE rules and laws.arian wrote: So yes, there can be no absolutes in a system of belief where there are no rules or laws.
Technological advances occur when people learn what works and does not work in the real world.arian wrote: But then how else would have all the technological advancements come about if not wishful thinking and flights of fantasy??
I do not doubt that you are deeply troubled by such things.arian wrote: Oh Z, .. you have no idea how I wish at times to just climb up in a high lush tree, find a nice strong branch to lay on and relax, not thinking about all them demons, mysterious men, UFO sightings like that meteor-like creature that attacked me, and especially "them" being out to get me or conspiring against me. The only problem is that, like lions, once they target you, they will hunt you till they kill you, .. and they can climb trees. They are relentless Z, but I have faith in that; "a rest remaineth for the weary"
If one begins "analysis" of my statements with an assumption that they are based on "faith" it is not surprising that their conclusions are in error. However, if you wish to argue that my words are profound or Earth-shaking, that is not my delusion.
How, exactly, would it affect your life to learn pre-op that a surgeon understood that evolution (genetic change through generations) occurs?arian wrote: . . . if I was about to be put under prepped for a surgery and found out Dr. Mengele who believed in the Evolution religion was my surgeon, .. it most certainly would be important in 'my LIFE'.
Yes my friend, I hear you say that, and I have a feeling you may even believe that, but as I have explained in my lengthy posts that todays New BB-Evolution religion is redefining definitions of words, rules, laws at an alarming rate, and since you back this religion at all costs, it is understandable that you don't see the contradictions I point out.KenRU wrote: [Replying to arian]
You continue to fail to understand the major difference between you and I. I am willing to accept new data (that may be in contradiction to what I already believe) much more readily than you are.
Science has all kinds of 'data' that Joseph Smith and his Mormo worshiping religious claims are false, yet, .. it doesn't phase the Mormons a bit either.KenRU wrote:If tomorrow, science found data that said there was no Big Bang, it wouldn't phase me in the least.
Yes, .. yes, and one of the reasons for my lengthy posts is that I keep pointing out those "vast quantities of evidence" and how ridiculous it is to consider assumptions, guess-so's, sci-fi delusions, un-evidenced million and billion year old stories that were made up by people who spend their entire life counting their prayers to idols like 'The Mother of God Mary', .. which I see is the hallmark of religious fanaticism!? How could you claim you are not religious when you accept some divined insight from a religious priest who prays holding and counting his prayers on a rosary to dead idols?KenRU wrote:On the other hand, when confronted with definitions from the dictionary that show you are religious, you call me "malicious" and respond with a voluminous War-and-Peace-sized post. Clearly, you are already blinded by massive preconceptions. Denying all evidence that runs counter to your belief system, despite all of the vast quantities of evidence saying otherwise is, simply put, the hallmark of a religious belief system.
Oh no, .. really, nothing at all. You, as others here are defending your religion from science, like my "Scientific Evidence of The Creator". Now what I define would be undeniable for true scientists, but since as I said that; "Science has been taken over by religion", the only defense is 'denial'. So the 'undeniable' part has no meaning in Big-bang Evolutionary terminology.KenRU wrote:But, I've derailed the thread long enough. My apologies to everyone.
But can't you see my friend, that the ONLY 'undeniable' evidence that you could accept of a creator is a religious version, like the Big-bang and Evolution stories. And as I have said coinless times now, I am NOT here to argue about your, or anyone else's 'religious beliefs'.KenRU wrote:If you do decide to post "undeniable" evidence of a Creator. I will respond accordingly.
You know what KenRU, how about this? Do you have Mormons in your area? Maybe you know some Mormons, or have a few of those kids come around on their bikes, .. how about you ask them real nice the question: "You are a Mormon correct? Do you know who Mormo is?"my friend KenRU wrote:Otherwise, I'll let the readers decide who was "malicious" or "debating honestly". If it was me, than I will humbly apologize with no strings attached. If it wasn't me, will you?
All the best,
It is responses like the above that show how little you actually listen to other people here, Arian. Perhaps you do believe everything you post here, and that’s fine. But outright ignoring responses (not to mention the unwarranted accusations of maliciousness) is just downright bad form.arian wrote:Yes my friend, I hear you say that, and I have a feeling you may even believe that, but as I have explained in my lengthy posts that todays New BB-Evolution religion is redefining definitions of words, rules, laws at an alarming rate, and since you back this religion at all costs, it is understandable that you don't see the contradictions I point out.KenRU wrote: [Replying to arian]
You continue to fail to understand the major difference between you and I. I am willing to accept new data (that may be in contradiction to what I already believe) much more readily than you are.
Riiight. Your stand is, “My belief in the Creator and the bible is not religion, but your science is.� Got it. Your opinion was noted long ago, and given its due consideration.Science has all kinds of 'data' that Joseph Smith and his Mormo worshiping religious claims are false, yet, .. it doesn't phase the Mormons a bit either.KenRU wrote:If tomorrow, science found data that said there was no Big Bang, it wouldn't phase me in the least.
Why?
Because Mormonism is a 'religion' created by a religious fanatic, .. just like Georges Lemaitre was who created the Big-bang religion. Ask any Mormon: "Do you know who Mormo is?" then go and ask a Big-bang religionist if they can explain what a "quantum speck of we don't yet know what, Big banged in 'nothing'" looked or sounded like?" They will tell you the same thing, "who cares, this is what I believe brought the universe into existence, period. Sure we wish he would have called it something else than a Big-bang, but that's besides the point."
Same with the Mormons and other cults, they care less what or who 'Mormo' is, all it matters is that they are Mormons
The same with the 'Heavens Gate' cult, you may ask: 'How in the world did they believe that if the earth is recycling itself, that if they commit suicide they will save their life?" Not only that, but to urge the people of the earth to do the same, is very 'Jim Jones-ish' if you ask me.
The Big-bang-Evolutionists are the biggest promoters of Agenda 21, which is exactly the same delusional agenda as Marshal Applewhite's "kill yourself, everyone or you will die! Hurry, there is no room, no food, no energy, no water, .. look at our Post-Apocalyptic movies, can't you see the destruction, the chaos? Here, .. inject yourself and your children with this chemo-therapy and this 'radiation', get the treatment while there is time! Hurry, everyone that dies is better off because God is up there in great need of them! "They are just so much better off because Gods-not-dead anymore, he has risen and will raise you too after you kill yourself and your children! Hurry, hurry, hurry!"
Another unsubstantiated accusation. I’ll just file this one with all the others. Anytime you feel like showing evidence of my religion, I’m game to discuss it. Be sure to include the names of those religious priests you think I worship.Yes, .. yes, and one of the reasons for my lengthy posts is that I keep pointing out those "vast quantities of evidence" and how ridiculous it is to consider assumptions, guess-so's, sci-fi delusions, un-evidenced million and billion year old stories that were made up by people who spend their entire life counting their prayers to idols like 'The Mother of God Mary', .. which I see is the hallmark of religious fanaticism!? How could you claim you are not religious when you accept some divined insight from a religious priest who prays holding and counting his prayers on a rosary to dead idols?KenRU wrote:On the other hand, when confronted with definitions from the dictionary that show you are religious, you call me "malicious" and respond with a voluminous War-and-Peace-sized post. Clearly, you are already blinded by massive preconceptions. Denying all evidence that runs counter to your belief system, despite all of the vast quantities of evidence saying otherwise is, simply put, the hallmark of a religious belief system.
Oh no, .. really, nothing at all. You, as others here are defending your religion from science, like my "Scientific Evidence of The Creator". Now what I define would be undeniable for true scientists, but since as I said that; "Science has been taken over by religion", the only defense is 'denial'. So the 'undeniable' part has no meaning in Big-bang Evolutionary terminology.KenRU wrote:But, I've derailed the thread long enough. My apologies to everyone.
But of course, after all it is posted on the "Debating Christianity (the religiously created one) & Religion Forum". But I have hope that a few here may realize the differences, and demand we go back to 'before Constantine's creation of the Christion Religion' .. where Believers were called 'Christian' simply based on them being seen by the world as "Christ-like", not something they called themselves. Actually calling the name of your church back then as "The Church of the Christ-like", or something like "The Church of the Holy-ones", .. or "Church of Righteousness" etc. would not be considered very 'Christ-like'.
Here’s an idea. Why not create a poll, and ask how many people here, theists and non-theists consider your “proof� to be “undeniable� or even “proof� at all? Then you can get an idea as to how many people actually: “realize the differences, and demand we go back to 'before Constantine's creation of the Christion Religion' .. where Believers were called 'Christian' simply based on them being seen by the world as "Christ-like", not something they called themselves.�
I’d be very curious as to the results. Wouldn’t you be too?
No, apparently you are here to ignore what other people say, make baseless accusations, and change the definitions of words.But can't you see my friend, that the ONLY 'undeniable' evidence that you could accept of a creator is a religious version, like the Big-bang and Evolution stories. And as I have said coinless times now, I am NOT here to argue about your, or anyone else's 'religious beliefs'.KenRU wrote:If you do decide to post "undeniable" evidence of a Creator. I will respond accordingly.
And this relates to me how?You know what KenRU, how about this? Do you have Mormons in your area? Maybe you know some Mormons, or have a few of those kids come around on their bikes, .. how about you ask them real nice the question: "You are a Mormon correct? Do you know who Mormo is?"my friend KenRU wrote:Otherwise, I'll let the readers decide who was "malicious" or "debating honestly". If it was me, than I will humbly apologize with no strings attached. If it wasn't me, will you?
All the best,
Now if they don't know, or have absolutely no idea who Mormo is, their 'mission' to convert others to their Mormon Religion can be considered simply from ignorance, right?
BUT, .. if they do know who Mormo is (then they should know who Gorgo is also) then their intent is malicious.
Why?
Because they come in the name of the Biblical Jesus Christ, holding the Bible (usually the KJV) and inviting people to become Satan worshippers, because if they know who Mormo, Gorgo and all the other underworld demonic forces like gargoyles that decorate their Temples are, the malicious intent is clear, .. and according to the Bible that they hold in their hands, they will be rewarded accordingly!
Both Joseph Smith and Georges Lemaitre expressed their divined insight, and made some unbelievable claims that cannot be proven, but only believed in, as in 'faith alone', and millions of intelligent educated people chose to believe it, .. every day denying their conscious mind (that still small voice) telling them otherwise.KenRU wrote:And this relates to me how?arian wrote: You know what KenRU, how about this? Do you have Mormons in your area? Maybe you know some Mormons, or have a few of those kids come around on their bikes, .. how about you ask them real nice the question: "You are a Mormon correct? Do you know who Mormo is?"
Now if they don't know, or have absolutely no idea who Mormo is, their 'mission' to convert others to their Mormon Religion can be considered simply from ignorance, right?
BUT, .. if they do know who Mormo is (then they should know who Gorgo is also) then their intent is malicious.
Why?
Because they come in the name of the Biblical Jesus Christ, holding the Bible (usually the KJV) and inviting people to become Satan worshippers, because if they know who Mormo, Gorgo and all the other underworld demonic forces like gargoyles that decorate their Temples are, the malicious intent is clear, .. and according to the Bible that they hold in their hands, they will be rewarded accordingly!
I'm guessing you don't have much hope then of swaying people to your POV, based upon your response.arian wrote:Both Joseph Smith and Georges Lemaitre expressed their divined insight, and made some unbelievable claims that cannot be proven, but only believed in, as in 'faith alone', and millions of intelligent educated people chose to believe it, .. every day denying their conscious mind (that still small voice) telling them otherwise.KenRU wrote:And this relates to me how?arian wrote: You know what KenRU, how about this? Do you have Mormons in your area? Maybe you know some Mormons, or have a few of those kids come around on their bikes, .. how about you ask them real nice the question: "You are a Mormon correct? Do you know who Mormo is?"
Now if they don't know, or have absolutely no idea who Mormo is, their 'mission' to convert others to their Mormon Religion can be considered simply from ignorance, right?
BUT, .. if they do know who Mormo is (then they should know who Gorgo is also) then their intent is malicious.
Why?
Because they come in the name of the Biblical Jesus Christ, holding the Bible (usually the KJV) and inviting people to become Satan worshippers, because if they know who Mormo, Gorgo and all the other underworld demonic forces like gargoyles that decorate their Temples are, the malicious intent is clear, .. and according to the Bible that they hold in their hands, they will be rewarded accordingly!
"This is not my conscience talking to me, it's just the billions of years of evolution triggering these delusions in my brain. I have no separate conscience, just a brain, and with the right drugs or psychotherapy we can fix the brain."
Only there is a big difference, because Mormonism isn't taught in schools (yet), but the Big-bang Evolution story IS. And who is the biggest advocate of "The separation of Church & State"? That's right, the atheists who 'believe' in the Big-bang Evolution story. What does that tell you? It tells me that religion did take over our Country, and that this religion came and snuck in, in the name of science.
So what is the New definition of science?
It's whatever the 'Church' says it is.
It's not just you, everyone is effected in one way or another. There is hope though, we have to stand up against religious ideas ruling us, or idols as the symbol of our Freedom! (like the Statue of Liberty for instance) and return to original definition of the Word that makes sense.
I say: "Absolutes, Not Religion!"
Leviticus 26:1
Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God.
2 Kings 23:24
Moreover the workers with familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord.
Take care KenRU!
I know things change over time, but yes there IS a definite meaning to words that should stay throughout time. When we see 'love' to mean XXX - rated perversion, soon our children will associate that with love, and since children need love (especially having both parents working) they could be easily 'evolved' into accepting that as a replacement of true parental love.Zzyzx wrote: .When was that time of definite meanings?arian wrote: The argument is to go back to the time when words had definite meanings . . .
It is evidently not uncommon in any era for those who know only one definition for a word when several are applicable to think that the definition they know is absolute and unchanging. Perhaps they do not realize that languages change (evolve) over time and that dictionaries do not set definitions but record common use of words.
Apes, .. these animals that look, talk and walk like humans, and they go around telling people (usually of color) that they are animals of the ape family. They go around spreading malicious lies that because apes have hands like humans, that now humans are apes, just another animal in their 'animal kingdom'. But first they had to brainwash people to believe they had no mind other than what Evolution made their brain produce which are accumilated instinctive spasms.Zzyzx wrote:Who, exactly, has told people they were not human?arian wrote: Like people throughout history believed they were humans and not animals, right? But in the last hundred years they've been told that actually they NEVER were just human, but were always evolving animals of a particular ape family.
Killing people is still bad (absolute), unless you are in the Nazi lead US army and you are ordered to wipe an entire family of Arabs (in the early 40's it was Jews) out, .. then that is good, not bad, (perverted version of absolute) and you will be rewarded with medals and your Baptist Church will ask you to come up to the pulpit so everyone can cheer and clap for your bravery in serving your god and country.Zzyzx wrote:Kindly cite examples of "absolutes" when there ARE rules and laws.arian wrote: So yes, there can be no absolutes in a system of belief where there are no rules or laws.
Wait, .. I thought only Evolution did that by 'natural selection'? I mean humans are still evolving animals right? You are not suggesting that there IS some need for intelligent design (I.D.) in evolution are you? Because this 'Blue Brain Project' sure is trying hard to "improve" on the original design of man! What's with that anyways? They no longer can trust their Evolution Theory to make the right changes? I mean after 4 billion years of cosmological and biological evolution, and these apes now want to make changes, improvements?Zzyzx wrote:Technological advances occur when people learn what works and does not work in the real world.arian wrote: But then how else would have all the technological advancements come about if not wishful thinking and flights of fantasy??
Don't you see Z, .. you finally convinced them that they don't need the 'Light', and now they are content to be in the 'dark'. Children fear danger until someone convinces them that light and dark is both good and not to be feared:Zzyzx wrote:I do not doubt that you are deeply troubled by such things.arian wrote: Oh Z, .. you have no idea how I wish at times to just climb up in a high lush tree, find a nice strong branch to lay on and relax, not thinking about all them demons, mysterious men, UFO sightings like that meteor-like creature that attacked me, and especially "them" being out to get me or conspiring against me. The only problem is that, like lions, once they target you, they will hunt you till they kill you, .. and they can climb trees. They are relentless Z, but I have faith in that; "a rest remaineth for the weary"
When my daughter and son were little children they were afraid of monsters under the bed or demons in the closet. Together we explored thoroughly both places and left the light on so none could sneak in. That seemed to allow them to rest contentedly. As they grew older they laughed about their silly fears.
I do not know how it might be handled if they had such problems as adults.
I keep presenting 'Scientific Evidence of our Creator', and shown you God our Creator, this Infinite and Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit is not an animal who created us in His image, .. yet you keep telling me; "according to popular belief which is now in dictionaries, and which we now call science, you are an animal arian!"Zzyzx wrote:If one begins "analysis" of my statements with an assumption that they are based on "faith" it is not surprising that their conclusions are in error. However, if you wish to argue that my words are profound or Earth-shaking, that is not my delusion
Oh that's not the part that would worry me, I would just ignore it as part of his religious beliefs. It's the part where; 'here is a Nazi-Evolutionist who is about to do some surgery on a Jewish animal!' Now that's what would worry me!Zzyzx wrote:How, exactly, would it affect your life to learn pre-op that a surgeon understood that evolution (genetic change through generations) occurs?arian wrote: . . . if I was about to be put under prepped for a surgery and found out Dr. Mengele who believed in the Evolution religion was my surgeon, .. it most certainly would be important in 'my LIFE'.
Telling people that they evolved over billions of years from a single celled bacteria that popped out of a wet rock is NOT the same as bacteria getting immune to antibiotics, OK? I mean I have been poisoned so many times in my life, that I really do believe I have become immune to many poisons, but I am still a non-animal human created in my Creators 'Image'.Zzyzx wrote:Would you prefer a surgeon who did not know that many microbes have become antibiotic resistant through genetic change (evolution)?
I would prefer a real doctor who has been trained by observing dissected organisms in the here and NOW, a scientifically minded doctor, not someone who would run to the back room and match my bones to some dried up million year old bones and read what the religious Evolution-Bible (little books) has to say about it? Or try to match my ancestry with fossils to determine if my problem arose from the more ape-side of my ancestry, or the lizard side?Zzyzx wrote:Would it be preferable that the surgeon claimed experience with various mysterious entities that they alone would see? Some might prefer a surgeon who did not appear to be "a few cards short of a full deck."
