JD says 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?
Your knuckles are still scraping > > > On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:25:00 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > 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 cam e > my way shortly after learning to walk upright. When will it happen to you? > jd > > 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 2ยข/min or less. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
