RE: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on

[ShieldsFamily]

“That ability came my way shortly after learning to walk upright.”   Was that in your pre-Neanderthal days, or after? iz   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:25 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on   If I can have no opinion about the creation because I wasn't there, then you are excluded for the same reason.   Certainly I wasn't there, but I know how to read AND comprehend at the same time.  That ability came my way shortly after learning to walk upright.  When will it happen to you?    jd   -------------- Original message -------------- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal with reality at all.  You weren't there were you? All you have in your favor are flights of fancy that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy. Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no explanation necessary.  He was there!!!   On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why can't it be the way it is written?  Well  -  I wouldn't know the answer to that,   Judy.  I am talking about what is written.   26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is written.  Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of creation and this Genesis account.     The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you cannot.  And you certainly have not debated the issue.   This is the third post from you I have opened this morning  with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too.  Just negative chit-chat.   jd   From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Says one from CA who has been permeated by the "fast food" fast everything generation Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" .... So why does God have to be in a big hurry? And why can't it be the way it is written?  Because JD says it does not make sense to him?   On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the Smithmeister.  Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion.  Indeed,  I have gotten angry twice, here on TT,  both times following one of your priceless comments .   Twice in three years  (going back a ways .)?!!   Not bad,  I think.    I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s) on this subject.    There have been times, in past postings, that you have been even brilliant in your defense.  This is not one of those times.   Science and creation is not one of your strong points  --  at least not this time around.   I suspect that you are distracted with other things.     To wit:   God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into existence  -   I say.   But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say exactly 144 hours  (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said.   Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office.  "Those dumb old land masses  --  they couldn't just POP into place.  N0   sir-reeeee.  It took time for them to move into place  -- upwards of several hours   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Com'on big D !!   Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have  a point !!   Look  --   if you give graduating high school students your kind of information and send to them to Humbolt State  -  why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would become atheists  !!  I have  seen  this happen   many times.   Our young people have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or whatever,  and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb.     You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my boys at U of Cal at Davies  --   but let me tell you this.  I had been working on one line explanations for years before my boys got to school.   All of those one-liners  thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave in another post  (the eternity of matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of  going with the eternity of God  -  thingy).   I have talked about "postulated" truth in the past  -- that such is considered to be   "truth" but without the possibility of PROOF.  I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God  .....  all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone.   And guess what  -- my boys called!!!  These guys each won state wrestling championships and I coached them  (AND YES I AM MOST DEFINITELY BRAGGING).    In some venues , they completely trusted me and with reason.  Probably the most important long distance phone call I will ever receive from my boys was THAT call  --  "Dad, this prof is killing us !!  What do we say?"  There was no doubt in their minds that The Reply would work.   I could have lost both boys the next day in class  !!  You should have heard that next phone call .... the next evening !!  Awesome.    How did I know it would work ?  I went to several science classes over the years and used my best stuff in class   --  none of it survived except the above.....  but it was enough.     Use the Bible as a battle ground AND YOU WILL CONDEMN YOUR CHILDREN TO HELL.   Get the educator to admit that his world of knowing is not that much different than the Christian's and you have common ground with which to discuss.   You never fight your opponent in his backyard  !!   Since TT is almost over  - one more story.  My oldest daughter came to me as a14 year old with her first job.   Her boss was an atheist.  She tried to convert him and got beat up in the process.  "Dad,  how do I defend inspiration to Bruce?"    "Julie, you don't even try.   Do this  --  explain to him that all of the writers of the New Testament scriptures were murdered for their beliefs and then ask him,  'Bruce, don't you think you should at least examine what it was they died for ?"   He told her he was prepared for any response but that one !!  That opened a door that was slammed shut two weeks later in his drowning death at the lake.  Was there light in life because of that talk?    I like to think there was.    jd               -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Interpretation/interpolation/speculation re:Genesis leads one to that which one has just witnessed over the last week or so.   ----- Original Message ----- From: David Miller To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 23, 2006 17:01 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   I don't know why you are getting so emotional over this.   I think that when God spoke, in many situations, it took some time for what he said to take place.  For example, if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said.  He also may have been involved in other ways that we don't understand right now.  Do you see it differently?  It does not have anything to do with resting for the next day.   David Miller ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   David !!   Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts you have ever written.  First, an atheist mocks God and I am no atheist.   Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to actually speak) is rather simple  --  you have somehow lost the context of my statement.  My comments go the the notion that "day" is not a 24 hour period.    To say that it is metaphorical does not  mean that God did not create  the world and even in the sequence depicted  --  at least not to me.   Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that term , today.   Look  --  do you really believe that God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour period of time to rest up !!!??   And "rest up " for what?   Com'on David, this is impossible.     jd   -------------- Original message -------------- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through faith and speaking?  What does how long it takes for him to speak words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into being?  I don't understand your point.   David Miller ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   So which fundamentalist version  of creation do you support.  That A & E were spirit people.   A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t.  ?   The version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that can be   spoken in 24 seconds !!!   I just did it in 24 big ones  !!   including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry.    Consensus has NOTHING to do with !!   Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of anything.   Which version goes into the school system ???  We are still waiting??   jd   -------------- Original message -------------- From: Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't you get it JT? TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS! The opinions of Men are the key..... Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So? There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is agreed upon by the whole church either.  What does that prove?    judyt   On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do.   I know this  --  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole church.     jd       -------------- Original message -------------- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John wrote: > The world in which we live would reject > any mention of God in the evolutionary process,  > IMO.   But  creationism in the schools?   Could > that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical > fundamentalist take-over of the culture? ROTFLOL.  I sure hope you were being facetious on purpose.   John wrote: > But to allow a mere  statement that suggests God > is somehow in control as the Creator(?)   If this > could be presented into the secular system of > education without it being coopted by the fundies  > --  go for it.   But I doubt that it can.  What a shame > that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces > the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity > to introduce the Creator to others.  In case you did not notice, the fundamentalists are not causing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden in schools.  It is the liberal loonies like this Archbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.   David Miller       Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.