Why do creationists tell such outrageous LIES to attack evolution?
- Baileybearposted 14 years ago
0The bible says not to lie. Why aren't they following the bible? Why do they feel the need to defend God? Or is it really defending their very narrow worldview?
by the way, evolution doesn't directly attack god anyway
Yes, this is true. As a kid I told myself, God made the world in seven days but who tells us how long His days were? Maybe His day does have a duration of million years... Do we know it? In the Bible nobody tells us the details.By the way time is relative.
Is attacking going to change the way evolution works? If not then what's the problem?
just annoys me how hypocritical they are, and also confuse people to in order to suck them into religion
evolution was invented to confuse people and try to do away with GOD
Then tell us why scientists would go to so much trouble to make all of it up. And how this great conspiracy has been passed on on to every scientist in the world. How are they all made to lie about this and who is making them do so.
Can't wait for your detailed answer.Its there life work,they make alot of money from this,there collages make alot of money!why should they teach something they cant prove?I know they have alot of big words that make them sound smart,but its all B.S P.S darwiw was a christian til his little girl got sick and he prayed and ask God to heal her and she died,and then came the big lie
Who pays them money to lie about evolution? I want facts, not just your opinion. Can you back up your words with facts, or do you indeed fit the title of this thread.
If the scientists knew creation was true, wouldn't they be afraid to lie about god's work? If they knew creation was true, then this would mean they believed in god.
So, who is paying them dude? Give me some facts or else you are full of BS and just telling lies for Jesus like this thread is talking about. And the Darwin BS you posted has been proven false so many times only the uneducated still believe it.Scientists get their money from universities and federal grants. I know this from having worked at Washington University in St. Louis, MO. Now there is an interesting fact that goes with this. The money is based on past results or--if an unproveable (note that word) theory--the best argument thereon. Remember, Dr. Josef Mengele committed his horrible acts on prisoners in Hitler's Germany by the same standard. How did he keep the money coming in? The same way they do today, by falsifying this or that point. Why do you think that there are so many medicines being pulled off the shelves these days?
Because scientists' careers depended on them when they were approved. I think I have far more experience in academia than you folks do. Thank goodness, I live in the United States of America, where I can express any opinion--no matter how crazy YOU may think it is--without any expectation of being ridiculed, like you have done to me from word one.It's sad how people blindly follow science without knowing the complete motivation for results.
Well, your experience in academia apparently didn't affect your knowledge to any great extent. If you really think all grants for research in genetics and evolution is for a preordained result then we have nothing further to discuss.
I'm sure there are abuses in the system, there always are, but to promote a conspiracy of the magnitude you are suggesting is really sad. Who controls the worlds best scientists? Who is making up all of the evolutionary data, some even laymen may understand?
Give us names of immensely rich backers so intent on keeping Creation secret.
I am wondering whether it is the logic and reasoning side of the brain that dominates. You need that to describe what is happening in the creative side of the brain. So perhaps they are trying to prove what the creative process is perceiving.
A statement from Richard Lewontin one of your evo scientist - We take the side of science in spite of patent absurdity of some of its constructs,in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life,and in spite of the tolerance of the scientific commuinty for unsubstaintiated justo-stroies,because we have pryor commintment,a commintment to materialism.It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world,but,on the contrary,that we are forced by our priori adherance to material causes to create an apparatus of investagation and a set of concepts that produse material explanations,no matter how counterintuitive,no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.Moreover,that materialism is an absolute,for we cannot allow a devine foot in the door !!!
Great Come Back ! I wish to Hell I knew what it meant ! I've tried to read it twice and it makes even less sense the second time.
You really do need to expand the literature you read, no one here is saying sciece has all the answers, to say so would be absurd given that we strive only to seek answers to things we do not know.
The study of Evolution is only one small branch of Natural science and like all things cannot be looked at in isolation.
Instead of seeking ways to belittle science and things you know little about why not open your mind to the wonders it has already created and the answers it seeks to questions way beyond our comprehension.Allow me to translate.
"Faith-based beliefs are bad.
Science is a faith-based belief.
Therefore science is bad and is lies."Mark you must get a better brand of Christmas Crackers !
no matter what the facts say they are going preach evolution and keep creation out! And no matter what you think I do not hate science,much of science is good and helps us out in many ways , but if facts dont fit throw them out !
I will suggest to you as I suggested on this thread earlier on, pop into YouTube and look up David Attenborough, doesn't matter which link you pick some of his latest documentaries on Life are extremely good.
Just listen, don't judge, just watch and listen if that what you call preaching then there really is no hope for you.
A gentler more sincere teacher you will not find, he doesn't preach he explains, his mission is one of peace all he wants to do is educate in an attempt to save the life on this planet...all of it.
If trying to understand the Evolution of life and by so doing saving it is in your book a crime or a sin against your God then I guess I have no more to say to you or the rest of your denial buddies.
you say creationist lie to attack evolution,what about all the lies evolutionist come up with to attack God,here are 6 {archaebraptor} {piltdown man} {lucy} {neandertal man} {java man} {orce man} and many many more
Somehow, I think I would rather trust the scientist's objective finding, that have gone through peer review, rather than except your findings, which is based on Goddunnit, and nonsensical conclusions...and ultimately spouted from the mouths of the obviously unlearned of the population.
Love those stupid creation sites, don't you? Where are you from, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, or somewhere else in the Bible Belt?
Excuse my ignorance but are you saying the Bible Belt is a Place ?
All these years I was under the impression that it was something they wore to prevent their brains falling out of their backside !Unfortunately yes Merlin, a place of ignorance for most who live there, as proven by the creationists who are indoctrinated from a very young age into a variety of close minded churches. You can see for yourself how adamantly they refuse to recognize proven facts because their preachers tell them to.
Take Roy and David for example. Neither of them are able to post without a plethora of grammatical and spelling mistakes in their statements but presume to be taken seriously by those who know better.
They go to these laughable Creation sites and fully accept the proven wrong quotes from those who work for the sites. They make creationists look so ignorant there is never any chance they will ever be taken seriously by anyone who understands science.
The belt is what they beat those with who do not agree with their primitive nonsense. I should know, I've lived among these ignorant folks all of my life. Imagine how frustrating this is to knowledgeable people.
you boys need a chill pill,everyone of you evos start with the name calling everytime
Not sure you would rcognise a sense of humour if it bit you on the Butt !
Does that mean that a sense of humor suddenly comes to life and develops teeth, (over billions of years, of course)? Once again, proof of evolution!
Evolution obviously frightens you, GT. Why are you so afraid of it? Do you honestly believe, like your friend Roy, scientists all over the world are merely making up their findings just to prove guys like you wrong?
And if so, why are you guys so important to merit such an extremely difficult conspiracy? Do you think scientists with different dating and research methods get together and decide what their independent findings should show?
Just what is their motive for trying to show god doesn't exist when their research shows he does? Think about that for a minute.We need to lighten up a bit here. Where is your sense of humor?
Why would I be down about something so humorous, GT? I'm happy as a dead pig in the sunshine! Now quit stalling and answer the questions.
I think the real belief of many if not most scientists is that nothing exists outside of what is observable. They start with the evidence that this universe is here and seek to try to explain it totally by natural means. The trouble with this is, the evidence up to this point has not backed them up. Life itself has not been explained by purely natural means. The fossil records cannot explain the changing of one species into another. Because of their irrational belief that all faith in the supernatural is foolish, they cannot admit that the complexity and order of this vast universe points to a complex and vast mind that they will never grasp.
And this is enough to make all of the most noted scientists lie? I'm sorry GT, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! Think about it. You are taking the stance god created everything and are afraid to see if anything else was responsible.
Scientists seek truth, you seek to deny the truth. Your poor reason for the worlds scientists having to lie is pathetic at the very best. Try something else, a child would not accept this, much less educated adults. what kind of science education do you have that you can tell brilliant people they are wrong?
Honestly, are you never embarrassed having to make such poor excuses for your faith?Are you never embarrassed by your lack of reading skills.
I never said that Scientists lie. I said that their world view completely dismisses the obvious evidence for design. They don't come from a place of "I don't know" as you have said. They come from a place of I know for sure that this observable universe is all that there is. This may not be stated but it is to be inferred by all that they do and say, especially on the origins of life.
Klaus Dose, the biochemist who is considered one of the foremost experts in this area, has said:
"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origins of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in confession of ignorance."
Yet these same men still insist that there absolutely is no god. They deny that maybe, just maybe, this observable universe is'nt all there is to reality.Actually I'm quite proud of my reading skills, GT. I've read over 10,000 books in my lifetime. Everything from science to history and the arts. I've even read several versions of the novel you worship.
Why do you keep putting up these guys from creationists sites who can be found nowhere else of any consequence. And not only that, what they say is usually taken out of context, as is this case.
The quote you used was in reference to a certain type of protein used in an experiment which caused a type of life to be formed. He also said he expected a better solution to life creation would be discovered in the future. Have you read the work this was associated with?
And you don't say "who" considers him to be a foremost expert in this area, unless it is only the creation sites where his quote is to be found. You keep giving me these guys who can't be found associated with any respected scientific organization and expect what? Give me something factual, not just something you wish to be true. Pretty sad, GT!
Answer this-Do you believe dinosaurs were around during the time of the supposed great flood?And yet the point is still made that Science is baffled as to how life began. Unless they just created a cell recently.
No, they are not baffled at all, GT. They will eventually succeed despite ignorance and superstition fighting them all the way.
You are no different than those who charged early scientists with heresy when they announced the sun wasn't the center of the universe. They were threatened with death from your early counterparts. Those men of god look foolish and ignorant now, don't they? But you probably still think the sun is the center of the universe. That's as true as other stuff you stake your soul on.
What about the dinosaurs now?And once they figure this out, then they can tell us how the matter got here in the first place that started this life. Unless it just suddenly appeared out of nowhere as well.
And I will tell you where the dinosaurs were at the beginning when you can show me the missing link between man and a lower species.That's right, they will tell us. But you will undoubtedly cry, HERESY, just like your fore-bearers. LOL! Why are you afraid to answer about the dinosaurs, GT?
Don't you know what you think about the dinosaurs, GT? Oh that's right, you'll need to go to your creationists sites to find out what you think. LOL!
There is no missing link, by the way. Who told you there was?In order for man to evolve from a lower species there must be transitional species. What do you call it? Or maybe you should go to your peer reviewed Scientific papers to answer the question for us that are uninformed.
There are several of our past ancestors documented, GT. You didn't know this? Now, what about those dinosaurs? What are you afraid of? Unless you don't know what to think, and it is okay to say you don't know. There is no shame in it.
No, you've given me absolutely nothing as far as proof for anything you claim and refuse to answer a simple question which requires no proof at all on your part. Why should I waste my time when you show such fear of giving me your opinion on dinosaurs?
I don't believe you are a preacher of any kind if you are so afraid of giving your opinion on this simple matter. Why are you so afraid to answer why you are so afraid. LOL!You still haven't given me any evidence of the so called fossil records that show the transitions between a lower species and man. As far as I've heard anything that is so called proof is merely fragments which are open to interpretation. Some of them have been exposed as frauds. That is my limited knowledge. Give me your wisdom.
By the way, since you are so anxious to get my humble opinion on the dinosaurs, I cannot say for sure because Genesis doesn't say anything specifically about them. But since God created everything, he created them as well. Some even believe that since they were supposedly reptiles, they began as small creatures and grew over long periods of time into larger creatures. Reptiles, as you may know, keep growing as long as they live. The Bible indicates that before the flood, life expectancy was a lot greater. That may have been true of the reptiles as well.
But just like your transitional man, all of this is speculation and I will not die for this explaination that I have given you. I only know that all life demands a life giver.So you don't know if they were here at the time of the flood or not? I take this to mean you believe as most creationists that the world began in 4004 BC? My,my,my!
Actually, the date 4004 B.C. comes from Bishop James Ussher. I don't think most creationists would go along with his date any more because he used some faulty reasoning in his calculations. And in case you think that the Bible says this or leads you to believe this in any way, it doesn't. Where you are correct, however, is that most creationists believe that the earth is thousands of years old and not billions. And as you may know, some don't agree with the young earth belief.
Yes I know, GT. I think it was to have been at 9:30 PM on a Thursday or some such nonsense. But I have to give the bishop a break because unlike today's creationists, he had no means to know any better. He didn't get to see actual facts and then refuse to believe them.
Do you think willful ignorance is a sin, GT?
If I proved evolution was real would it make any difference to you in your beliefs? I would guess no, but tell me if I'm wrong about this. If you proved a god existed I would believe it.If it were possible to prove evolution from one species to another was a fact, it would change some beliefs but not my ultimate belief in a creator. This universe and all of its glory is a wonderful testimony to a higher intelligence, no matter how He chose to create it.
Hey GT,
Any idea who Hezekiah was ?
Any idea what laws he laid down round about 700 BC ?
Or is he just one of our myths ?It amazes me how many have tried to prove the characters in the Bible to be made up people over the years. And time after time archaeology has proven the person who tried to prove these things wrong. There is much we don't know about the past. That is why we need archaeology.
Not sure that actually answered the questions I asked...
I didn't say Hezekiah was a myth I asked you if you knew who he was and what lawas he passed ...Just to let you know, I am not ignoring your questions. I am just busy and this forum seems to take up a lot of time. So I will answer this question now and your other on the Neanderthals later. Although I know you already know this stuff and are looking for another way to discredit something.
Hezekiah was the son of Ahaz and the fourteenth king of Judah. He became king at the age of 25 and immediately began to make sweeping religious reforms to restore the worship of Yahweh, the God of Israel as the Torah of Moses commanded.
The first thing he did was to open the doors of the house of the Lord again. Hezekiah rejuvenated the organization of priests and Levites and their support by the gifts of the people.
He assigned the divisions of priests and Levites, and instructed the priests and Levites to clean the temple, from the common dirt to the abomination of the idolatrous altars that were set up in it so the worship could be reinstated.
Further, he ordered that the people observe the Passover again. The invitation extended to all of the Israelites from Beersheba to Dan to take part in it. This Passover was one such as had not occurred since the days of Solomon.
Hezekiah got rid of all of the idolatrous images in Judah including the brazen serpent. For all of this he was called a good king in the Scriptures.
Encouraged by the prophet Isaiah, the king tried to break Assyria's political dominance, and he also attempted to purify Judah's covenant faith by abolishing the worship of Canaanite religion, and Assyrian gods.Which is a very long winded way of saying he is the man responible for passing "The One God" law, Right ?
Why not just say so ?
They had tried the one God theory a couple of times but the poor simple folk couldn't get their head round it, God would be lonely so there had to me a Mrs. God. And of course they would have lots of little gods and soon they were back to where they'd started.
By the time in got to Rome and the rest of Europe they were much more efficient at this conversion thing, 'Convert or Die!'
They even exported this method to the new world with great sucess it seems. Where all the fanatical splinter groups came from remain an Evolutionary mystery though.
Even early mankind without your so called Missing link is older than that. The Neanderthals, I assume you accept the fact that they lived at one time, are older than that.
Plus if the Biblical version of creation Ala Genesis were remotely feasible that would mean that your God put man and Dinosaurs on the face of the Earth at the same time, strange that in all the Bible that never once gets a mention.
Including good old Noah who I imagine would have needed new shorts if two of every kind of dinosaur turned up on his doorstep. What did he do Pray; Dear God where the *#^% am I going to put them ?
Or maybe this is what caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs.... it wasn’t the a meteorite collision 65 million years ago it was the Flood.....!
Way to go GT.... Have to admit you won that Round !!!Merlin - this is what they believe. They think the dinosaurs were turned to oil in the flood by a process known as "rusting."
Seriously.Thanks for explaining that, I worked in the Oil Industry for 25 years and always though those Geologists and Chemist were full of shit...!
So how long ago do you believe the dinosaurs existed---according to creationists?
On many of the Creation vs Evolution debates the creationists refuse to address the dinosaur issue when asked. William F. Buckley was one of these who refused to say anything on the subject. This ought to tell you something about the faith of creationists.. I know of no other question Buckley ever refused to answer.
I actually feel sorry for those who have to explain known scientific facts away with nothing to defend themselves with but "God done it." This thread is a good example of why the title is correct. The obvious lack of education by the proponents of creationism or Intelligent Design on this thread is worse than I ever feared. They proved the point for us.Tha't ashame. William F. Buckley was such an intellect.
The debate is on Youtube and is in 8 parts. The creationists are a trip as usual. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT3NZTGCtrIIt is amazing how many intellectuals of every age believed in a creator. Maybe you can't just use the umbrella of stupid when referring to believers. Although you still will do this.
And it is no doubt that there are even some as bright as you that accept a creator. Maybe they had a brain tumor or something. That would explain it.Being indoctrinated into religion does strange things to even intelligent people, GT. Especially when children are told at a young age they risk going to hell if they do not believe in god. Surely you cannot argue that children are not affected by this.
You probably experienced it yourself, didn't you?I think you unknowingly put me in the category of an intellectual. If you meant to do this, thank you. If not, then I'll take it as a compliment any way. The answer to your question is I was never frightened of God as a child and I felt that it was nice to have someone so powerful love me.
It is you actually using the umbrella of stupid. I use the word psychotic, of which a person of any IQ could become afflicted.
GodTalk, do you understand what psychosis is? Do you understand what it does to the mind when the object of that delusion is questioned. Do you know that YOU are displaying symptoms of this affliction? Mental disorders can affect anyone.
You have said nothing to support your belief in a childish nonsensical fairytale. This is clearly a bizarre delusion, and anyone, no matter what their IQ, appears to be suffering from some form of psychosis--which is causing the delusions.
I can say that the obvious arrogance of the evolutionary believer is greater than I feared. When asked for transitional records between species, you can't give them. When asked about how matter or energy can be eternal, you just say "it is"- end of discussion. When asked how abiogenesis is even possible, you say: "We're working on it." When it is pointed out that Science has been wrong in the past, you say: "Well it is obvious that we are right now, so there can be no other explaination." And of course Science has determined that there is no need for a god even though the theories that they espouse about the origins of life defy all of the known laws that have been discovered so far in this universe.
It is interesting that you call my beliefs myths, and at the same time have some pretty unbelievable explainations of your own.I just thought of something else. My relationship with my creator is very precious to me. I couldn't imagine living the life of an atheist. To me it would be such a sad existence to think that this life is all there is and my existence is ultimately meaningless. I wish for you the joy that I have knowing I am here for a reason, to bring glory to my God.
And I feel sorry for you for living under the threat of being tortured forever in a flaming pit. That must be a terrible thing to worry about. I am very happy being good on my own without saying I do so because an invisible deity of some sort, is so needy of worship and adulation that he uses extortion to make me be good. A very bored and murderous god, I might add.
And to make it even worse, he/she chooses the most ignorant humans he can find to communicate his words to the other frightened humans. Boy does that make it tough to have much confidence in his ability to judge anyone.
No, even if you saw proof you would deny it. Ye'll heretic at me GT, see how it feels to emulate your infamous predecessors.I'm sorry that you were obviously hurt by religious people, which makes you a bitter man. But I'll leave the name calling to you. There has been enough of it on this site.
Not hurt at all, GT. I was exposed to the same indoctrination. I know what it is like. All religions are the same with the children. It's the same as telling a child about Santa Claus, except they aren't threatened with eternal damnation if they are bad with Santa.
Common men wrote the bible and there is nothing to show any of the authors were inspired by any god other than their saying so. And some of the earlier books were too crazy even for the church. Of course you know that. As a pastor you should know all about how the bible has been edited and re-edited, added to, taken from, until other "god inspired" men (some of the same ones yelling "heretic") decided it was right. Sad but true, GT. Yes the truth and you cannot change, it no matter how much you would like to.
That is theoretical since you haven't shown me any proof yet.
Your cohorts and you prove this almost every post. How are you different than the ones yelling "heretic" GT? Why did those people think the world was flat? Ignorance, religion, or both? It surely wasn't science, was it?
Do you relish being thought of as these men were? Or perhaps you prefer the martyr image.It would seem that you have taken the martyr image against us terrible creationists arguing for proof of your flawed theories.
They are not my theories, GT. Just as you are not god's messenger. If so, give me proof. If you cannot accept the word of the smartest scientists your god ever made, how can you expect me to take your word that god chose you to speak for him? Do you not see my point?
The title God Talk can mean talk about God. I don't claim to have any special revelation from God except what He has given all Christians in the Bible.
Sorry if it offends you to throw a little Bible in but it does say that God uses the foolish to confound the wise. The truth is, it doesn't matter who is giving forth truth, if indeed it is truth. In fact God chooses some people just to show that wisdom doesn't come from those of superior intellect. It comes from Him. He, as you implied, gives these men wisdom to use for good or for evil.
You may be enamored with these men of superior intellect. But they are just as capable of being wrong as everyone else. That is why peer review is needed. And could it be that peer review can be flawed if most Scientists have a certain world view that is exactly the same: That the supernatural cannot exist?
Is self delusion happiness ? Just a question.
It would appear that in this statement you have answered all our questions for us, you need your belief to give your life some sort of meaning.
On the other hand we non believers do not, happy are we to live our lives and do the best we can with what we have without the need of a religious crutch or someone church telling us how to think or act.
You will never know the freedom we experience with our minds open to all the wonders and possibilities of this world and the Universe beyond without the encumbrance of constantly looking over our shoulders to see if the churchmen approve.
You believe in some sort of afterlife, I do not, if I’m wrong than let us meet there and I will happily listen to all your “I told you so’s until the day Hell freezes over !
Of course if I am right then I will not be granted the same privilege, hardly seems fair does it ?
How long did it take men to learn the magic of flight, GT? Your ilk said man would never land on the moon. They also said the earth was flat, the sun was the center of the universe, and so on through all sorts of nonsense they weren't intelligent enough to understand.
And it was because people just like you could not comprehend any of these things being true. "The earth is not round, these men are heretics and should be killed for blaspheming god!" You would have been right along side of them ready to throw the first stone, GT. I know this and so do you.
They called for the death of intelligent men for the same reason you don't believe in evolution. Because it isn't in your book. I hope if there is a god he will forgive you for trying to stop knowledge from being disseminated among humankind. That is the worst sin of them all.If you study the history of modern Science, it was actually made possible by a Judeo-Christian world view. I know that you will deny this but I can show it is true. I just have to go to bed now. I don't know where you are living but here it is very late. I'll answer your anticipated tirade on this statement tomorrow.
Yes, it is late here too. I have things to do tomorrow and I know you have children to indoctrinate at church. Get to them early before they learn to think for themselves. Look how good it worked for you.
And answer when you please. I will not be addressing you again. Good luck on ignoring future scientific discoveries, I think you can do it if you just keep your mind closed as you've proven you can. If I see you in heaven I'll know I was very sinful and was sent to my idea of hell.
Don't like to contradict but the God Squad said the Earth was the centre of the Universe and the Sun and Stars orbited us.
500 years ago it was Copernicus who postulated that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It was Galileo's championing of Copernicus that caused all the trouble when the Catholic Church condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture.
That was in 1615, I believe there are still people alive today that believe the Sun goes rount the Earth.....
Sorry to inject real Scientific facts into this thread I know how it annoys people....!By the way, what people like me are you talking about? By and large, the majority of the greatest earliest Scientific minds were men who believed in a god. Including Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo.
Actually it was a small error on Randy's part I was correcting.
But since you bring god into the equation, yet again... Back in the 16th and 17th century Europe everybody believed in god... or at least in public they did. Everybody went to church and had to be seen to go...
The alternative was too painful... such was the disproportionate power of the church... nothing.. including the truth was allowed to stand in their way.
No problem, Merlin! I was half asleep when I wrote that and knew better. Thanks!
You know, I keep waiting for either side to offer proof of anything. Scientists should be able to offer proof, therefore if you believe in evolution, you should be able to offer your proof as any good scientist can and will if asked for their proof of their theory. On the other hand, since creationism is a matter of spirituality and is therefor faith based, the only proof a believer in creationism should be asked to provide would be what they base their faith on, all of which can't be proven by scientific means. So until both sides find common ground and respect for the others beliefs, all y'all are going to do is what you've been doing, fighting a war of words with neither side winning.
I would tend to agree; however, I don't think the "proof" can necessarily be equivalent. Religion is based on faith, not "proof" in the scientific sense.
I'm pretty sure that's what I said in other words, but still the same idea.
That comes in handy when there is no proof at all of a god or gods. There is plenty of proof for evolution, you just can't understand it, or want to for that matter. Because if you understand it, you would have to admit it is true or pretend to not understand it.
What would it take for you to believe the scientists are right about the theory of evolution? Any or all of you?Yes, I don't understand the Theory of Evolution. I guess I never studied it, didn't grow up in a household with it, and just plain don't understand it. You know what else I don't have a clue about Abiogenesis, stabilizing directional disruptive selection, or Left handed Amino Acids. The Theory of Evolution is like telling me I need a Theory on Global Warming, but I guess you believe in that too, because science told you so. If I'm starving I don't need a Theory to tell me I'm going to do what needs to be done to get something to eat. What would it take for you to dis-believe the scientists about the Theory of Evolution? Don't worry, you won't ever have to, because when they are proven wrong, they will just adjust the Theory. That's the great thing about a Scientific theory, it's ever changing.
What would it take for you to believe it, then? If you understand the theory, that is. Get technical, if you like.
It would take a lot of reese's peanut butter cups, which originally evolved from the reese's pieces. The next time your eating a peanut butter cup, and a guy named Reese walks by and says give me that you better hand it over.
What timing! I was just looking at this on Wikipedia less than 10 minutes ago. I'm serious! But you have the progression wrong. The cups came first! Not lying about just reading this right before your post.
I don't know about that. The company was sold to Hershey's in 1963 I think!
I meant the pieces. I think those came out in the late 70's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reese%27s_ … utter_cups
Read 'em an weep!I understand that, this is what I was referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reese%27s_Pieces
I wasn't implying that you were wrong about Reec'es peanut butter cups coming out before pieces. It was just a joke..you know ha ha. I didn't realize you were going to try and turn something so trivial into a pissing contest.Yes, I wasn't seriously arguing about candy! But I was serious about just reading about it a few minutes before you posted concerning the candy! Perhaps I am psycho....er,.. I mean psychic!
But I can pee a long way!
So admitting to total ignorance on practically all subjects including Evolution and Global warming this gives you the right to have an opinion and comment Why ?
I suppose you are one of those that can see no correlation between the dramatic increase in world population, the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of rain forests and the current state of the planets upper atmosphere.
That’s a great philosophy for a happy life, stay ignorant and there’s nothing to worry about. Now I understand.The right to have an opinion? Because I'm in America, on an American website dude, and I have the right to free speech. Yes, I am also one of those who can see no major correlation. I don't need a Theory to tell me the Earth is going to get hot and cold. It would do that whether we were here or not. I also find it interesting that some individuals believe in evolution, but not Global Warming and vice versa. Scientists tell us that the Theories are correct, so why have any doubts abut either?
Dear me. I think you have a right to an opinion. Unfortunately your opinion is basically nonsense to defend your religious beliefs and will be ignored by all but people of your ilk who do not understand the vested interests that propagate the "arrogance" of thinking 7 billion humans cutting down all the trees and burning all the fossil fuels could make a difference to the planet and there is a Invisible Super Daddy in the sky that means you can continue to consume as you please.
If it will be ignored, why did you feel the need to respond? Impact on the earth, yes. To the degree proclaimed by the current cash cow, no. Consume as I please, no. Find a balance, yes.
Odd. I will continue to attempt to educate you and ignore your nonsense. That clear now? As you obviously did not understand.
Good to know you throw out the biblical "go forth and multiply" and do not think god gave you "dominion over."
And I am glad you consider yourself more capable than all scientists - and know what impact 7 billion people is having.
Did god tel u in 2 your head?I have no need for someone with a hubris attitude who is not formally versed in a subject to attempt to educate me. I prefer to learn from educators who are models of chivalry and valor. I'm no more capable than any other man. I just don't blindly believe in science like you choose to do.
Rather than taint this thread with a disagreement about Global Warming, there is already a thread about it here:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/63461I understand you are not interested in learning anything - I got that already. You have made it abundantly clear. Valor? I am not valorous? Oh you think I am a coward? How odd - I only ever get called a coward on the Internet by people who hide behind an anonymous user name.
Oh, I think you misunderstood, I'm interested in learning. I don't really notice anything too dangerous on the internet that requires you to be valorous. Valor is a step above courage. If something doesn't apply to you, just ignore it.
Nothing you say applies to me. Especially your veiled personal insults. No wonder Christians cause so many wars.
If nothing applies to you then ignore it like you stated in your original post to me. I wasn't insulting you at all. It's sad that you see it as an insult or personal attack anytime someone disagrees with, or doesn't care about what you have to say.
Yes, Christians cause so many wars, and no one else does at all. You're a riot.No - I will continue to try and educate you, despite the veiled personal insults. They do not bother me because I know you have been taught not to develop ethics and morals. As a self professed Christian, you have no moral compass to guide you. I will try and help you develop one.
At least we agree Christians cause a lot of wars.
Or do you think that is acceptable because some non-christians cause wars as well? Odd. I hear that argument a lot from Christians.
They do not need to be peaceful people because Pol Pot was an atheist.
Of course you have a right to both free speech and an opinion. Many people in your country and mine have fought to maintain that right, I'm one of them. Many have died for those rights.
Although perhaps I should have asked if you think you have an automatic and moral right to publicly voice that opinion after an admission of total ignorance on the subjects under debate ?
Just a thought !Do you have an automatic and moral right to publicly voice your opinions on Theories you had no part in formulating? The "admission of total ignorance on the subjects under debate " was a joke dude.
All I have to say is that you are assuming way too much from what little I did say. It's actually rather funny to see the evolutionists doing exactly what they accuse the creationists of doing. There is phyiscal evidence that may or may not prove evolution in the end, and for believers in creationism, there is also spiritual evidence that may or may not prove creationism in the end. I find it so odd that you would assume I know nothing about evolution and can't understand it just because I haven't jumped on your band wagon. Very strange that.
I assume nothing and you ignored the question.
And you are not biased, are you?
If you understood the theory of evolution, it would aid you immensely in giving an informed opinion on the subject.
You cannot see scientific proof if you don't know what you are looking for. Can you understand this?
Australopithecus Afarensis, from 3.9 to 3 million years ago.
Australopithecus Africanus, from 3 to 2 million years ago.
Homo Habilis, from 2.4 to 1.5 million years ago.
Homo Erectus, from 1.8 to 0.3 million years ago.As I said in another post, the evidence for the supposed transitional fossils from lower species to man are extremely sparse fragments and are open to interpretation. Many of the so called transitional species have been faked and discredited altogether. Science, to prove their transitional theory, have a long way to go. And if, as I believe, the transitions aren't there, they are chasing the wind.
I assume in your humble opinion this includes Neanderthals as well, perhaps you may wish to enlighten us how come between
1- 4% of modern man's DNA is Neanderthal in origin ?one to four percent really isn't much if I am to believe, as my professor says, that we share over 90 percent of our DNA with a banana. Does that mean we are descended from bananas too! lol It would seem to me that an entity that could create everything that is would naturally create things with matching DNA for the creation to eat. I mean, how else would the created beings manage to survive otherwise? Just curious, you know, just learning or trying to anyways, so I'm just saying>>>>>>>>>.
It is really interesting about those Neaderthals isn't it.
Scientists keep having to upgrade their status as they find out that they were not the sub-human species that they were originally thought to be. They have found out that they had musical instruments and also that they had some human-like burial rituals. And now they are seen to be living right beside our ancestors as well. Not only that but they even mated with them.
The bottom line is they were descendants of Adam and Eve just like you and me. Rats and dogs can't mate. Cows and pigs can't mate. That is genetically impossible because they are of different species. The so-called Neanderthal man, was just that- He was a man. Just like we have variety in the human species today, there was variety back then as well.
From what I have read, there are people living today that have DNA farther away from the average than the DNA of the Neanderthal. If we follow the logic of some Scientists, maybe some people living today should be classified as a different species.
By the way, some of the earlier scientists thought that these Neanderthals might have had rickets which could possibly account for their seemingly distorted features.The World according to GodTalk, and what a strange world it must be, Neanderthal man is descended from Adam and Eve. I’ll bet the real established church love you for that one !
For your information DNA studies have proved that we and the Neanderthals had a common ancestor about half a million years ago but other than that the two species are not related, at best that makes us distant cousins. Or are you trying to say that Adam and Eve is that common ancestor ?
For the last 10,000 years of their existence, Neanderthals shared Europe with modern humans, ( formerly known as Cro-Magnons), and apparently we led fairly similar hunter-gatherer scavenger lifestyles.
You don’t get any points for pointing out to me they must have interbred because I told you that and gave it away by saying we shared some DNA.
Your point that scientists keep modifying and updating their thoughts and theories is what I would call a privileged glimpse at the blindingly obvious since that’s what scientists do all the time. It’s called progression, as new discoveries are made, new facts found it’s possible that it will effect what was previously thought to be true and so unashamedly we update, amend and move forward. It’s what we do !
In a way it’s what this and hundreds of other threads have been all about. We challenge what is around us, we seek out the facts and yes not all of our thoughts and opinions will be correct but we adapt as we learn and move on.
What I and many others have tried to point out to you is we do this.... Creationists do not, you just try to justify what was, by moving the goal posts, leave a few bits out and say things like, “Well that’s not what they meant to say...!”
You just gave us a first class demonstration above with that ridiculous assumption that we are all descended from Adam and Eve. In your book the Creation of everything happened only a few thousand years ago.
Science has given you a Geological Time line that says you’re off by several million years.
Please don’t feel the need to respond, I tire of this nonsense and plan my return to the real world. Believe what you want makes little difference to me although it saddens me that you will undoubtedly continue to spread the word according to GodTalk to a younger and more susceptible audience whose poor lives you will blight.It continually amazes me how all of the things that Science uses for dating things can never be proven. You can tell me something is millions of years old and how can I or anyone else dispute it? There is no one that can go back millions of years ago and say, "Hey, you are right on the money!" or "Hey, you missed it by a century!" We just have to take the Scientist's word that their dating methods are accurate. Maybe you can enlighten me as to the method that they are using today to come to all of these conclusions. Or are you merely accepting by faith what the men of Science are telling you? The truth is, the methods used to date things is based upon several faulty assumptions. Since you won't check this out for yourself, you will continually live in a world dominated by your cultlike faith in Science.
By the way, I am shocked that you think that I am living in my own world with the theories I have stated. These are not original with me. I'm surprised you've never heard all of this before, being so enlightened as you are.
So does this pitiful rant prove that your silly book is the answer? NO!
Should we take the word of a nonsensical book as the source of all knowledge, because there are some disparities in evolution? NO!
This is the most desperate plea in support of nonsense I have ever seen. Man!Did you say some disparities! That is an understatement.
And no, I don't expect you to take the Bible as the truth because you've clearly hardended your heart to anything except the words of your gurus of Evolutionary theory.That's complete BS. Your Bronze Age silly book, written by goat herders, is completely absurd, even if there was no debate about evolution.
Even with an open mind, the concept of an Adam & Eve is a primitive, nonsensical story told to a fearful ignorant population. Yet, here you are trying to convince others that this is the truth of how we arrived on this planet. You have an extremely limited imagination, and you have sacrificed your life to a delusion.
You are truly desperate, trying to use a rational argument to prove that a childish fairytale is true.I have to take issue with the idea that their book was written by goat herders. The original stuff was written by a group of highly educated people and contains some of the most forward thinking of its day.
I doubt the writers ever imagined that the metaphors they used in trying to rationalise the unknown (in a similar set of theories to the way science works today except with no information as evidence) that a whole bunch of future numpties would start claiming it to be literally true, even children know a good story full of metaphors when they hear it - you would think today's adults would know better with all the information and evidence all around them. You have to wonder at the levels of mis-education these people have suffered.You would have to reared in the Bible Belt to understand, CM! Almost every creationist posting here has been indoctrinated into these beliefs at an early age. Over and over they have been told if they don't believe the Bible they will burn in hell. They cannot help telling these untruths, they think they are fighting a battle for Jesus! Seriously!
And you have your own delusions. I hope your sacrifice is worth it in the end.
To what nonsense are you referring? My idea of nonsense is the fact that you can actually believe that this whole universe and all that it contains can just suddenly all come together and form by blind chance. Even primitive goat herders wouldn't believe such foolishness as this.
Oh, I'm sorry! I don't want to misrepresent you again. I should have said that blind chance was helped out by having billions of years to get it right. That makes it a lot easier.
Funny how one book of myths and superstitions can make people believe things like that, coupled with a lack of knowledge and understanding, people make assertions like this:
Absolutely astounding and breathtaking ignorance!
In other words, you're not interested in hard evidence or proof of any kind, from your own words:
"as I believe, the transitions aren't there"
So, we can conclude the discussion is not really over, it never really started and probably never will.
If you honestly believe this is how science works then it is no wonder you are confused and say the things you do.
However for what it's worth I agree with the statement that science and the truth of our existence scares you.
I think the reason it scares you is that in your heart you fear we may be right and that you and many many others have lived with a false belief.
I won't call it a lie because the Biblical story of creation is just that, a story, thousands of years old told as a simple explanation to a simple people. Same as saying "God did It !" Was a good way of stopping people asking questions.
The whole point of scientific work starts from "I Do Not Know" and starts from there no preconceived notions... or there shouldn't be.
I do not have the Spirit of fear in me,there is nothing you can do or say that can scare me or put fear in me.Everytime you evos come out with another missing link I know that its a matter of time before the hoax is seen for what it is!!! And if my God let me down as much as yours I would be bitter and angry like you and show it in a dried up humor like yours
Point out the name I called you, Roy. Why do you have a problem telling the truth? Does your religion teach you that telling the truth is bad?
i myself would not suck one into religion while yet all of our highly profound sceintist are not able to solidify their belief in evolution first it was a ape then a fish a germ a asteroid a star whats next when the simplicity of it all is God created man
Are you sure you weren't first? Your speech seems rather rudimentary!
Poor oppressed Darwin; God's telling lies about him. We should dig up his grave and make a statue outta the dust of his bones and fall down and worship such a wise man.
and how would that help?...after all nature does not demand to be worshiped nor do dead ones...
I was being sarcastic.
You're right, nature doesn't demand to be worshipped, and neither do dead people. But many people DO worship those. Go figure.
From Catholicism (which many sects worship a dead woman) to athiesm (which many sects worship the earth) to "new-agers" who worship themselves, to Islam (which worships a poor imitation of God) to a myriad of religions and ideas that worship everything but the true God.Atheists don't worship anything.
There are some nutty Gaia folks, but they are not atheists. They are just another kind of theist, just like you.I think they do.
I think they worship that thirst for knowledge, a knowledge unattainable by anyone until death hits.Since when was a search for knowledge Worship ?
Surely a search for knowledge is merely a search for enlightenment and truth....
You are right that it is something we do, or should do, until death. Any day I do not think or challenge myself is a day wasted. Any day I fail to learn something new is an opportunity lost.
If as you suspect we will continue this search beyond death then I will embrace that challenge if and when it comes.
But please forgive us who will fill our days in achieving all we can from those who wish to teach.So, essentially you are saying that we prefer to learn things and you don't. Doesn't that say more about you and not us?
No. What I'm saying is that you seek knowledge, the knowledge that Christians already have, and you seek it through the wrong means.
1 Corinthians 1: 21, 22:
"For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knows not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom."
You are like the Greeks who seek wisdom through tangible facts, while the Truth is right under your noses and you dare not look at it for fear you'll be labeled one of those "foolish" ones.Really? Your god told us about germs, computers, algebra, trigonometry and so on and so on?
Christianity provided some history and some myths. No knowledge.Actually, most, if not all, of those concepts ARE in the Bible.
Just not easily interpreted by most people, because they want it all laid out in definite form like a math teacher would do. The easy way out, and all the while claiming to want real knowledge....but that is how it should be...it should not be hidden and subject to interpretation...may be god can learn from math teacher that it is teacher's job to make sure student learn and dont misinterpretate...god wants humans to survive , work for their food and in the end makes things difficult by hiding things which he actually wants them to learn??????...well god seems to be anything but loving kind...i vote for maths teacher...atleast she helped me learn things which brings me bread,butter...
Sure they are, Brenda, sure they are.
Could you point me at the part that tells us how to build an anti-gravity machine? Or cure cancer?You obviously didn't read the chapter of the bible that goes,
'And lo, Bill Gates said un to the unsuspecting programmer, I will borrow thou graphical interface and bring it back in the morning.'
Isn’t that like saying the only book you ever need is a dictionary because everything ever written is in there all you have to do is sort it out !
Why is it so hard for anybody to understand that the Planet and all life upon it Evolved millions of years before the equation, “I think therefore I am,” came to the mind of man ?
Torah, Bible, Quran, Jew, Christian Muslim, they are all slight variations of the same tiny theme, for their time they gave the answers to the questions of the day....
Today for some people those answers seem to be enough for them, therefore they should be happy and content with that, but they don’t seem to be.... I ask Why ?
Others, like me are far from content with some Holy preacher telling us we must blindly accept everything they say as God given Fact and when we refuse this makes them more unhappy, again I ask Why ? Why does it bother them so much ?
Are they unhappy at our disobedience of their dubious authority or the fact that we seek enlightenment through our own efforts ? Or could it be that as is already the case that their authority is built upon Myths and Lies and that some of us see them for what they are and that the only truth they hide is truth itself.
The Roman Catholic Christian Church did this for centuries and murdered any and all who dared to challenge them. We are seen frightening similarities in Fundamentalist Muslins today and a growing Evangelistic movement in the US who would promote the same murderous zeal if we allowed it. In the past five thousand years man has developed and advanced and matured in knowledge and wisdom why therefore have we managed to leave so many of you behind ?
All I have ever sought is a simple answer to a simple question WHY do these people fear the truth so much that they will cheat, lie and murder to suppress it in the name of a fictitious Supreme being ?The bible contains those things, just as any book if analysed enough could contain anything.
That's very funny, Brenda. LOL! But, I do understand how believers equate 'knowledge' to the myths and superstitions they embrace.
So sorry that you have been labeled "foolish" for your beliefs, Brenda. But, when you reject tangible facts for myths and superstitions, the proof is in the putting.What truth? The bible offers no knowledge, at best it can be said to be a collection of rather obvious moral values.
I think you have an atrocious comprehension deficit. How did you score on your entrance exams when you were studying Philosophy?
I actually score incredibly well, and I also know how people will use grammar in an attempt to exaggerate their intelligence. It is of course one of the number one pointers of personality deficits of people who enjoy belittling the intelligence of others but who cannot hold reasoned argument.
The Bible is all about truth, and knowledge. Sorry you have not spent any time discovering it for yourself. It was written by the hand of man from the inspiration of God, the creator of the universe.
Learned men and women have tried to disprove the truth that is in the Word of God, with no success. Yes, they can claim to have done so, but as time goes by, the Bible proves itself to be truth.
As far as knowledge is concerned, you can find financial advice, relationship advice, building advice, advice about not repeating history, the whole gamut of the human experience is displayed in the Bible. All you have to do is read it.
You might be interested in taking a look at the prophesies to see where we are in relationship to those. Remember, the Bible was written in ancient times, but the prophesies are coming true as we speak. How's that for truth?I think you need to get out more often. If you did, you would know that the bible has been easily debunked.
It only takes a little common sense to debunk the outrageously silly nonsense in the bible. The only reason you can't accept this is that you can't admit that your religion is a farce.
So re-interpretion will be done again and again and.....I think you meant 'Re Invent' not re-interpret.
I can't believe this thread is still going round in ever decreasing circles, I gave up trying to debate this and half a dozen other like subjects as one of my New Years resolutions.
It's a waste of time and it is an argument that no amount of logic, reason or common sense is going to overcome.
If you take away the Dummy, the child just screams all the louder !
Do what I do, close the door on them let them rant and rave till they run out of listeners or die, whichever comes soonest and go down the pub for a pint.Bless your heart, the Bible has never been disproved, just disbelieved but rebellious souls.
God bless you
VOICE CI W, What truth? Jesus Christ is Truth. The Bible contains so much knowledge. Have you studied the Bible? Not just read it, but sat down and studied it. If you don't believe in Christ you won't get any knowledge from it. The Apostle Paul said in the Bible, If our Gospel (Bible) is hid, it is hid from those who are lost. The Bible have a wealth of knowledge in it, you just have to believe.
When the Bible talks about knowledge, it is reference to knowing the spirit. When it talks about wisdom, it is referring to self righteousness. Book learning is not part of the mix. Here is my comparison of how the Bible is trying to tell us we are part of the collective consciousness.
1 Cor 2: 11-16 "For what man knows the things of man except for the spirit of man within him? We have received the spirit which is of God...comparing spiritual things to spiritual things. But we have the mind of Christ."
So, Christ is one with the Father. We have the mind of Christ. We are made not only in the image of God (physical) but in the likeness (personality, spirit, etc.) We can therefore strive to remember what it is like to be as God.
1 Cor 4:18 "Let no man deceive himself. If any seem wise, let him become a fool, that he may be wise."
This is the beginning of consciousness appearing in the mind as intellect. An 'intellectual' might 'forget' spirit so we must lose the illusion of substance at which point we gain non-attachment and therefore a purified non-argumentative mind. On attaining purity there is the flow of spritual consciousness. The wisdom obtained in this higher state is different than that attained by inference.
However...habitual patterns of thought stand in the way of this austerity. Some of us call it nature, while others call it god.
Atheists worship the matter. But it is not worship, but it is belief system which qualify for religion. Actually is registered as the religion.
Athist don't worhsip anything. A religio-centric world requires it be recognised in that category for atheists to have normal human rights--so we did.
Everybody worships something, money, status, education, just because they don't realize they are "worshiping" it doesn't mean they aren't. Whatever you esteem above all else is your God. Some who worship the one true God really worship their time on their boat more. If more true believers truely believed, there'd be less atheists because others would see God living and working in their lives, instead they hear that God is present but only see someone just like them.
That's funny. Atheists worship the earth? I am an atheist and everybody in my family are atheists. And, mostly, the people I associate with are atheists. As yet, I don't know of anyone worshipping the earth. We actually do not worship anything or anyone.
We try to live as ethically as we can because we are mostly humanists. This does not mean we worship human beings. This means we think that there is no god to hep us, so if we want to sort things out on this planet then we better be kind to other humans and do the best we can collectlvely to make this a good place to live...The Earth is not dead anyway, so whats wrong with worshipping it? It sustains all our lives, with the help of the sun and the climate.
now you'd kick up a stink if we swapped Darwin for Jesus
This actually made me laugh. I must agree that Darwin is more deserving of my worship than 'god'. But for now I think I'll leave him in his grave.
The Demon Writer: Oh, you like to worship dead, I see.
At their heart, religions are about control. In order to control, one must limit critical thinking. The entire purpose of the ID/Creationist movement is not to elevate ID to the level of a science, but to diminish science to the status of "just another belief system".
If the Discovery Institute and their Creationists cohorts can succeed in relegating science to the level of belief, there is no longer a reason that ID/Creationism cannot be taught on equal footing in classrooms.
It's pretty sick and twisted logic.Good point. Religion in general is a form of behavior and social control. Christians have the "Ten Commandments". Muslims have their edicts of what is halal and what is haram. Jews have kosher and not kosher. Even Buddhists have "don't kill life" and such edicts.
Most of the problem is about the fact that science is not something they can control. Science does NOT require the almighty being(s) to be present to explain everything, or in fact, anything. It doesn't help that Atheists have borrowed Darwin's banner and use it somehow to "prove" that God does not exist. (Darwin himself never said such a thing) As a result, Creationists became directly opposed to Evolutionists.
I recommend Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe in Weird Things", where he discussed in detail the reasonings of Creationists (or as he called them, Evolution-Deniers), their similarity to Holocaust Deniers, and a short history of both and how to spot problems in their arguments.i wouldnt mind hearing some of the 'problems in their arguments'. It sounds fascinating.
Aka Winston, it is communists who promote Darwinism. The same time Marx, Hitler all saluted to Darwin. They want control, power and money.
i dont think religion is about control perhaps in the past when we look at what catholicism did but today.. i don't see my church running for govenor or trying to get mass followings to declare a private state. I don't even see my church trying to control me.
I do not believe the bible was created for control purposes i believe the people of the bible had a genuine relationship with God and the more i read the bible and i see its depths of knowledge i am persuaded that it is not a work of man but of God.
You people who worry about control should really be looking at the institutions of control that are touchable in the world, govs, police, even up to the United nations. There are many more tangible oppressions in the world than God. Ye are all too superstitious.
Here's another lie that turned up on the comments of my hub, Darwin, The Man who killed god. The lie was: "Jim Jones turned people to become atheist!" LOL
Because the facts are not on their side.
They have to distort the truth in order to have an argument. Not that it holds any weight with those of us who know better, but they may confuse or mislead people who are not educated on the subject.
The only reason I debate creationists or Intelligent Design theorists is to help promote understanding, and maybe set one or two people straight in the process.
Creationism and ID are comprised - almost entirely - of assumptions (i.e. the assumption that the human eye is too complex to have come about by natural selection) and arguments from ignorance (we can't explain it, therefore, God dunnit). ID and creationism don't actually qualify as theories (they're hypothesis').Evolution does not exist. No one was there to see it take place and no one today has found even one shred of evidence in all of archeology or biology or science to prove it happened.
People believe in evolution because they want to. They feel the need to believe in something other than there being a creator or God.
Since all the so called evidence has been disproved, many evolutionist are now believing we come from some ancient alien race who seeded the Earth and propagated humans.
By the way alien is a word in the Bible for a stranger. Now it means someone or some entity from a far flung planetary system.
It always comes down to choice. Your are either for God or anti-God, for Christ or anti-Christ, or you believe in some other form of cult worship.
Definition of cult:
1 : formal religious veneration : worship
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad
b : the object of such devotion
c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Try looking at nature and see all the trees and flowers, see how different they are, then look at animals, what a great variety there are, and then the human. Do you really in your mind believe they all evolved from a rock or some primordial soup?
Maybe you need to read some anatomy and physiology books to read about the Krebs cycle or how many different things have to happen for you to see one object how many things happen within your body when you get a cut on your finger.
There is no way I evolved from some kind of slush, everything in your body was created to interact for your good. It even has built in obsolescence, our bodies are like a clock ticking down to stillness because it cannot be rewound.
The Great Creator of the Bible who is Jesus can rewind your clock and give you a new body that will last eternally. It takes a conviction that you are a sinner and a confession you believe Jesus lived the perfect sinless, blameless life, that He died for your sins and you believe in Him.
How simple is that to believe.A surprisingly well written post from someone who seems to have completely failed to do any research to back up their claims on that there is no evidence to back it up. Archeology, biology and science all back up evolution, but nothing backs up religion, at all.
You give me 2 proofs in Archeology, biology and science that back up evolution. I can't wait for your post.
Maybe life will evolve before you can document the 2 proofs in each field.You give me 2 proofs in Archeology, biology and science that back up evolution. I can't wait for your post.
Maybe life will evolve before you can document the 2 proofs in each field.Religion is not of God. The variety opinion is not of God. This is why atheism is also religion. There is no proof of anything which is pro evolution. The evolution is based on pseudoscience. Nobody can go back to study past. All is belief fiction, opinion.
But you do believe the ancient goat herders, right? LOL!
Evolution took place everywhere but in Texas. There seems to be plenty of proof of that!LOL!
Show me the evolution proof from your state.
It is funny how someone can attack Texas because they want to attack someone's belief.
Where is your proof?
LOLTexas happens to be a great place to live. I love it here, mostly because it allows me to be free enough to think my own thoughts and to believe what I wish. I think that is supposed to be what this country is all about.
Here in Texas, there is much evidence of how evolution did not take place the way the atheism religion says it did. Fossil remains, and archeology proves the contrary. Many brave scientists also provide proof that intelligent design is the only way that the earth and everything in it could have been created.
It takes a great deal more faith to believe that we evolved from some amoeba, or mass, than it does to believe that God created all living things after their kind. Where did the amoeba come from in the first place, if not from God? After all, that is a living thing.
Please, don't take this out of context, but I do believe in some form of evolution. I believe that nature has a way of adapting to its environment, but I do not believe that there is any way that one species can become an entirely new one.
I also believe that there must have been a pretty large "bang" when God placed the stars and sun and moon in the sky, and when He started the earth spinning on its axis. I also believe that Adam must have gasped when he took his first breath.
I believe we can see and hear evidence of His hand on everything He created every time we look into the faces of those we love, and see the wonder of nature. How could that have taken place without intelligent design. The simple beauty of a flowers and trees and oceans could not have taken place by chance.
Taking a look at the complexity of a single cell, one cannot honestly believe that it did not take intelligence to design this. How could there not have been intelligence involved when each cell is made up of so many parts. This could not have happened by chance.
I find it sad to think that one mans theory has led to so many abandoning the truth for something that has no real proof to back it up.
My prayer is that God will reveal Himself to those who have the courage to seek the truth.“Here in Texas, there is much evidence of how evolution did not take place the way the atheism religion says it did. Fossil remains, and archeology proves the contrary. Many brave scientists also provide proof that intelligent design is the only way that the earth and everything in it could have been created”
This a direct and deliberate LIEWhat part do you consider a lie? The fact that fossil evidence denies evolution or that brave scientists disprove the "theory" of evolution? Or, could it be that atheism is a religion unto itself.
I must assume that you have "facts" to back up your claims, otherwise you would not be asking for others to present theirs, but I don't find them here.
I also must assume that you are seeking some real answers, and I pray that God presents them to you.
God bless you
I don't consider them a lie - they are a lie, period.
I have taken the (pointless) time to look through the thread to find anywhere you provide one item of proof or even one item that might support your statement. You talk (a lot) about what people think and believe - but no proof or disputed evidence. I guess your god told you to lie for him then ?
As for the topic of this thread - why do creationists lie to attack evolution, it is because they are making the last attempt to defend their ridiculous ideas with the most ridiculous idea yet. This is only possible because of the modern media and the appalling ignorance that results from poor educational standards.I'm still waiting for our testing of the bible, so I can make up my mind about believing. I was just left hanging.
If you look over the various threads that discuss the childish notion of creationism you will find that there is only noise - but never any evidence, unless you consider that Woman of Courage's giant skeletons are fact
It is not possible that all the people who make the noise are stupid, so I guess we have to conclude that they are liars.VOICE CIW, how do you go about testing of the Bible. Can man comprehend the Infinite Mind of God. Belief in the Bible comes through faith in God. If you don't have faith in God, there is no way you will believe the Bible, the Bible is God's Word, you cannot begin to understand or believe the Bible apart from God. Man cannot test the Bible, the Bible test man.
Does the Koran have that status as well...or the Torah...or Aesop Fables...?
Dude, the argument you are posing is old, worn out, mindless drivel. It shows the ultimate in blind following. You mean to tell me you are advocating that we have no way of testing the bible, unless we already believe that the document is TRUE?
You, clearly, have surrendered your mind.
Do you consider that, maybe...just maybe, you should have more control of your life than this. This mindset is frightening.Truth does not change, how can it? What is true may age, but it will never become untrue.
You have no way of understanding the truth, because you do not believe. It is often just as hard for an intellectual to believe in God as it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.
If you will take a look at the prophecies in the Bible, you will find that many of them have been fulfilled in the past century alone. One in particular occurred in 1948 when Israel became a nation in one day. Prophesied in Isaiah 66: 7-8 The link below will show how that transpired.
http://therefinersfire.org/israel_born_in_one_day.htm
You don't have to believe, but you and others ask for proof all the time. Here it is.
God bless you
VOICE CIW, Frightening to you getitrite, and well it should be, you are the one following blindly the god of this world system. You people kill me, you actually think you are in control of your life, I got news for you, your mind is in control of someone else other than you. And guess what? You are too blind to see it. God is in control of my life, and I am so happy and blessed. I am not going to go back and forth with you, you do not belive what I am saying, so I will just say, I am going to pray for you.
You believe in mythical characters--devils and demons, and gods. And you believe these mythical creatures are, at this very moment, controlling you and me?
VOICE, you should not go back and forth with me, not because I don't believe, but because your argument is pure childish nonsense.
Apparently, you have no evidence to back up your claims to anything being a lie. You seem to simply be relying upon opinion, yours. Just because you do not choose to believe something does not make it a lie.
You talk a lot also, and from what I can see, it is all just a lot of hot angry air. That in my opinion is childish.
In the final analysis, we will all find out, soon enough, just who is lying and who is telling the truth.
As I have said before, those who choose to believe the biggest lie of them all, ( that there is no God) are not likely to be convinced of His existence.
God bless youAnd this is coming on May 11, this year, right?
idamac, I am in full agreement with your response. God bless you!
so where is the evidence from Texas and who are the few 'brave' scientists who have proved anything to do with your weird belief is factual. Accusing others of hot air when that is all you have given - is normal tactics for the liars for jesus.
Stop puffing and blowing and put up some evidence - or stop spreading lies and deceit.God bless you , China Man. My hope for you is that you will be able to see the truth when it is presented to you.
Why don't you simply back up your statement about "brave scientists", like several of us have asked you to do? If you can't then you are merely telling lies for Jesus. LOL!
china man, Evidence? You wouldn't believe the evidence if it were staring you right in the face. It's not kind of you to accuse me of a liar when you disagree with something I believe. I will not accept any of your insults. Love and Blessings to you
Have a nice day!Do you guys think making statements without anything to back them up helps your argument? It only adds to the obvious desperation you project here on these forums. Sad.
Speaking of evidence, where is yours. You have not presented any as of yet. I know the scientists cannot provide definitive proof of evolution creating life.
God bless youThat is true because evolution does not "create" life. That would demonstrate no understanding of evolution on your part.
Well yes, it would take faith to believe in such nonsense considering life did not come from a Big Bang. Again, this demonstrates no understanding of those concepts.
Of course, by not understanding any of those concepts, one immediately jumps to the conclusion of a magical man waving his magical hand based on the religious indoctrination received as a child.
And, it sure is very, very odd that you claimed your husband is a microbiologist, yet there is no understanding of the very simplest of those concepts on your part.
Really? Kinda like making the claim your husband is a microbiologist with proof that evolution is false.
Well in the first place it was not you I accused of lying - it was the post to which I replied, secondly I know from your previous posts that you are a simple soul trapped in the narrow confines of your creationist indoctrination - not a liar.
The liars for jesus is directed at those who say that they have evidence and then cannot produce it - they must know they don't have it - and so they are liars.
VOICE CIW, idamac whoever do not believe that God exists, is void of understanding. The fear (reverence) of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom and knowledge. idamac, I have read so many of your comments, you are truly a child of God. You keep on contending for the faith, I am going to keep you in my prayers. You have another brother in Christ, me. God Bless You! I love you in the Lord
Here you go dude! A special video you will agree with. And Roy should love it too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU&NR=1Thank you Voice, I appreciate the confidence. Yes, I do love the Lord. He has done so very much for me. I have witnessed his hand on my life in many instances. I am not worthy to be called His, but as you know, we don't stand on our own worthiness, but on His.
My mission is to enlighten others about His awesome love. You are right, the fear (reverence) of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom and knowledge, thank you for the reminder.
Thank you also for being my brother, where would we be if not for family.
God bless you so very much.
well you're wrong in both those claims - misinformed or lying?
It would be nice if people would stop using the term lying, for statements they do not agree with. Just because you do not agree does not mean that the statement if a lie. That is just an easy way for some to demonstrate ignorance.
Now, before you take issue with the word "ignorance", you might want to take a look at the dictionary definition. Ignorance simply means uneducated, and that can simply be on a particular subject matter.
Misinformation abounds with many people, but that does not mean that a discussion of the topics cannot shed some light for all parties involved. I know that I learn when I get involved with a discussion of a topic that I am uneducated about.
God bless you
"Here in Texas, there is much evidence of how evolution did not take place the way the atheism religion says it did. Fossil remains, and archeology proves the contrary. Many brave scientists also provide proof that intelligent design is the only way that the earth and everything in it could have been created."
Great! How about sharing this exciting new information with us! Especially the names of the "brave scientists"and their proof of intelligent design.Sorry Randy, but it is not new information. Evidence of creation is all around us and has been since the beginning of time.
As for brave scientists, there are quite a few of them to choose from, do your own research. My husband for one, as a Molecular Biologist, can provide great amounts of proof that there is no way we could have evolved from some mass or form that had no beginning of its own.
My question is, where did this mass or amoeba come from in the first place? If the evolution "theory" is correct, who created the amoeba? Where did it come from so that it could have been responsible for creating everything that exists today in the natural form? You see, creation does exist even in the minds of evolutionists.
If there are no answers to these questions, then why should we believe that evolution is responsible for life as we know it today?
Where is the missing link? I know, they have been searching for it for decades. Some claim to have found it, but those claims are always debunked.
Can you provide proof that your "theory" is correct? Like I said before, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation.
God bless youSo you refuse to back up your statement but ask for proof from me? LOL!
So, you have no proof, but you prefer to stand firm on your belief that there is no God.
Reasonable people provide proof of what they believe rather than blindly following someone Else's thoughts. This is true with any sort of religion, whether it is Christianity, Islam, or Atheism. If you don't know the reason for your faith, you will fall for anything.
I believe that there are many Christians as well as others who follow the dictates of any religion, who do not fully understand the reasons for their beliefs. This is sad because not knowing why you believe what you believe sets one up for, as stated above, falling for anything.
I believe that this is one of the reasons that Christianity takes a bad rap sometimes. Quite frankly, I believe that not everyone that presents themselves as Christians is really a Christian. You have to sort through the superficial and get down to the nitty gritty.
Individual Christians should not be judged by the actions of others, but by their own. Isn't this true of every other person on this earth? We are all individuals and must be judged by our own actions.
I believe what I believe because I have proof that God really does exist. He has revealed Himself to me in many ways. I can tell you that He has been there when I needed Him the most. At times of great distress in my life, when I could not even utter prayers with my petitions to Him. He was there and sent people and things that I needed, and even provided the Bible verses that pertained to my circumstances.
I wish this kind of intimacy with God for everyone, but that is up to the individual to decide for themselves.
It will not matter what evidence I put before you, you will believe whatever you want to believe. I cannot prove that God exists, and I should not have to do that. He is big enough to prove Himself to anyone, at any time He wants to do that. He is a gentleman though, and will not interject His presence on anyone that does not want it.
Take a look at these scientists.
Francis Collins who headed the Human Genome project, understood that there is no number system to support the theory of random chance. You can find this authors writings on this topic at Amazon. The Language Of God a scientist presents evidence of belief
Linus Pauling understood that cellular development was too precise to be randomly developed.
Albert Einstein "It was created and set in motion. It evolves but only to change as the environment changes."
Neil Armstrong, the noted astronaut. "Things are too precise to have been randomly developed.
Charles Darwin stated on his death bed that he had made a grievous error. "I hope God will forgive me."
Your turn.
God bless youYou have put no evidence in front of me to back your claims. Your last statement about Darwin is laughable. He said no such thing. This has been debunked by his family. Not even a good try.
Can you prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? LOL!
Satan likes you!Like I said, we all have to choose for ourselves what we believe.
God bless youTypical christian, talk the talk, but refuses to walk the walk. LOL! Make claims, can't back them up.
Lucifer bless you!Randy
I'm still waiting for Idamac to test the bible the way she tested evolution, so I can make up my mind.
For some reason she doesn't seem to be the least interested in going at it in the same manner that she went after evolution.
Yet she wants me to respect the veracity of her beliefs.
This is what I don't understand about these believers, they can attack evolution, and leave no stone unturned, but when you ask them to do the same for their beliefs, they immediately retreat.
She just lost me as a convert, because it appears that there is an issue of integrity. The silence is an admission of dishonesty.She is typical of the thumper mindset,getitrite. Odds are she was raised in a fundamentalist church and was indoctrinated at an early age. Brainwashing at an early age is hard to escape from.
She has nothing but talk and a novel full of myths to try and defend her argument. Jim Jones would have been glad to have her help hand out Kool-Aid to the kids. LOL!You guys crack me up. You offer no evidence other than your beliefs that evolution resulted in life on this earth, yet you persistently try to cause others to doubt their time honored belief in the one true and living God.
As you may well know, the first man walked with God, and people have worshiped Him ever since. It has only been in the last century that the theory of evolution raised its ugly head. Time will tell.
You do not have to believe that He exists, but I know he does.
In the final analysis, I would rather be wrong and just go to sleep one day and that be the end of it, than to not believe and spend and eternity in hell.
We will someday see who is right.
God bless youI hope we don't see each other in heaven. That would be hell for me.
Baal loves you!Not so fast, I'm no longer advocating that evolution is true. I'm now in your court, so let us now scrutinize the bible the same way you thoroughly tested evolution. Don't tell me you got me this far just to abandon me.
OK, let's get started: Let us test the veracity of this--did the first man walk with God? When you say people, do you mean just Christians or everybody, or is this just religious talk to reenforce belief? Also will time really tell?
Please respond with evidence---keeping in mind that the standards for the evidence are to be as rigid as we set for evolution, lest we be dishonest-and not good Christians.
Let's see...we are gonna need some proof Idamac, Thanks
Ah Pascal's Wager would only send me to hell anyway, because it says in the bible that God already knows my heart, so He would know that I was full of BS. We're gonna have to debunk this one.
I don't know how you are gonna show evidence for this Idamac.
I cannot say it often enough. Where is the definitive evidence that life came from nothing but a big bang. Takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe that God created the earth and everything in it.
God bless youWhat evidence have you offered to back up your claim, Idamac? There is plenty of evidence to prove evolution is the only possible answer for the different species.
But you are so ignorant of science you cannot understand it. You prefer to believe in an ancient book of fictitious stories with a petty god which cannot make up his mind whether he wants to create the world or murder his own creations, including the vast majority of animals. I suppose those animals were wicked too, along with all of the babies and children.
What evil did these babies do, Idamac? And the pregnant women who drowned had innocent children in their bodies. Abortion is against your beliefs, but it's beautiful when a loving god does it, isn't that right Idamac.
But you want answer these questions because you are frightened woman. And because you have no answers, just superstitious nonsense. Too bad you weren't around during the Salem Witch Trials. Cotton Mather would have loved you. But you probably know nothing about this Man of God. He's not in your novel.
I'm asking you not to bless me with your evil god anymore. It is a personal insult to me.So if someone gives you definitive evidence, you would believe in evolution? What kind of evidence in particular would it take? And don't just ignore this question like you've done to those you don't want to answer.
idamac, I love your replies
It's not fair for anyone to judge christians by the actions of others.Actually it is a SIN to judge... period... if you claim to be christian...But I will agree is is unfair to judge someone based on the actions of others...no matter what thier beliefs are...
As long as we understand that passing judgment on others is what is meant. However, we must use our own judgment, or rather discernment, when we make decisions about people and things.
Passing judgment means to, in effect, dole out punishment, and that can be considering all Christians to be wrong.
Sin is missing the mark. I hope none of us do that.
God bless you
You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established Theory of Evolution, but you find nothing wrong with believing in nonsense recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a few generations old.
To say that you use double standards is a gross understatement.It seems like an honest question which you avoided. The answer is, you cannot answer it.
I cannot answer it either. We simply do not yet understand how the very first spark of life as we know it came to be. The earliest life forms we have found are 3.5 billion years old microbes, but we do not have a definitive answer to that question - yet.
Does that make the evidence for evolution some how worthless?Yes. If you cannot provide photos and fossil evidence of every single step and stage of evolution, that totally proves the whole theory is garbage and PROVES that it was really a magical being that made everything.
Thank you for not answering my question.
I see you have chosen not to address my comments on the 50 million year long Cambrian "explosion" and instead repeat the lie. Please address what I said and the link I added rather than repeat parrot fashion the same thing.
Oh well. That is Christianity for you. What I have seen falls apart based on the way Christians behave.
Yet that is what you claim is it not? Just needed a Majikal Super Bein wot dunnit. Sorry, of the hundreds of posts I guess I missed that one. Could you enlighten me? Also, your obvious sarcasm aside. If something cannot come from nothing in this universe, then obviously it had to come from somewhere. Unless you can answer that and prove that something can come from nothing, evolution will always remain an unprovable theory.
If I believe that the universe itself with all of its design comes from a living designer, how is that any more far fetched than you saying that everthing came ultimately from nothing or from some eternal matter or energy with no life and no will.
Also, where did the matter come from in the first place? These are questions that no man can answer. And yet Evolutionary theorists say Evolution has been proved.You say no man can answer, yet you answer with Goddunnit!
This is madness.God has answered for Himself, with the resurrected Christ.
It's funny how it appears that you are the one answering for God, because He is a figment of your imagination.
And so is your imaginary resurrected Christ. I have yet to hear these two imaginary creatures say ANYTHING. If I ever do, I'm gonna seek help.
God and Jesus-two beings purported to be all-powerful, but seem to be so weak as if they didn't even exist.
But you can keep imagining that they created the universe, and talks to you, and will send me to hell. However, I can't bring myself to fear them, becasue they are so ultra-powerless.I haven't seen your magical energy or matter bring forth its life out of nothing either. It would seem powerless to do so.
If I could witness that just once then maybe I'd fall down and worship at the throne of Charles Darwin. Until then I think I'll laugh at the mythical story of Evolution bringing forth a system so complex and vast that we have been studying it for centuries and still haven't reached the depths of its secrets.If you were here on the forums really looking to find the facts and to ultimately learn the truth, your position would be respected. But anyone can see that this is not your aim. Your aim is to try to destroy an established scientific model, and replace it with the ignorance of the dark ages.
If you had no agenda, but merely wanted to research the truth about evolution, then you would not "debunk" evolution in one statement, then champion your ignorant beliefs in the next statement.
Your argument against evolution is absurd, since you propose replacing it with this abject ignorance from Bronze Age goat herders, making up their own primitive brand of reality.So this forum was started to merely give forth the wonderful "truth" about evolution. Thank you for letting me know that. I thought it was started to make fun of religious belief in general and Christianity specifically. Since that is not the case and you had only the purest of motives to expand the minds of unbelievers, I guess there is nothing for me to talk about.
By the way, in case you did have pure motives in this forum, you don't lead people out of darkness into your light by insults. And just because a belief system is old, doesn't make it automatically wrong or a myth. It too must be examined for its merits. So I think it is faulty reasoning to call it a "Bronze Age Myth."
No wonder your religion causes so many wars............
Man causes wars. I could go on all day as to the thousands of good things Christianity has done, or to be more accurate, those who follow the Christian belief system.
Very True...Lots of good things have been done by "christians" but you must admit lots of bad things have been done as well...the same can be said of any faith...
No one doubts your ability to "go on all day" but your ability to actually say anything worth listening to is doubtful.
But carry on if you wish. You are a pastor so you surely like to hear yourself talk.Perish the thought! I'm too honest to be a pastor!
Yes, I had rather listen to myself talk than imagine I'm hearing supernatural deities, like some do.
What denomination are you, Baptist?I am a non denominational believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Also, I have never audibly heard God talk to me. Since the Bible is the complete revelation of God to man, He doesn't need to do this in the age in which we live. I am, however looking for Christ's return when I will see Him face to face. Then we won't need this debate any longer. We will all know He is real.
By the way, they say you aren't crazy if you talk to yourself. But just don't answer yourself. Then you might want to see someone about your condition.
You are free to do so, but others have tried and failed miserably. In fact, through their efforts, it was shown that Christianity has done far more harm to mankind than any good.
Another thing, you can call my argument absurd if you want, but you still cannot tell me where life comes from. It is absurd to throw out an intelligent designer when you clearly have nothing to put in His place. Life is a mystery and the odds of it happening by chance are so small that it is nothing you want to bet you life on.
The fact that believers do not go to any lengths to research or understand those concepts does not mean those concepts are not understood by others. And, the fact that believers immediately introduce "intelligent design" into their explanations only serves to confirm they have no understanding of those concepts.
It has been determined that:
It is Bronze Age Myths, mixed with a few facts.
I'm not the least bit surprised.
So what, then, is the point I'm missing?
How did I call this one so egregiously wrong?No one said you were wrong. I just said I didnt see that.
It appears to be a genuine observation and opinion about evolution. One that not only he has voiced but many others on this thread have too. That being, that evolution is a theory and cannot be proved. No one can debunk evolution with one statement unless one allows that to occur.
What you perceive or I perceive or anyone else as this or that does not alter evolution or creation. However which way we wish to view it.Okey Dokey! But I don't see how anyone would not be aware of his blatant agenda to totally negate a scientific model, and replace it with ignorant Bronze Age nonsense.
I would like to debate evolution with someone who has no agenda. And debate the issue on the grounds that evolution just doesn't make enough sense to be accepted as a scientific theory.
Ah - the crux of the matter - you do not know or understand evolutionary theory. OK - Odd that you claim to have found holes in the theory.
Still - back to the original question I suppose. Why the need to be so dishonest? Odd also that you say something did indeed come from nothing. Just that a Invisible Super Being dunnit. If you are too lazy to go back through my direct responses to you - I cannot be bothered to do the work for you.
No wonder your religion causes so many wars.
Regarding the question of whether this makes the evidence for evolutionary theory invalid, I would say no if your evidence truly is valid and your conclusions for that evidence are sound.
In looking at the fossil record, I see it breaking down around the era of the Cambrian Explosion. It is during this period that virtually every phyla known to man seems to have sprung. They co-exist in this layer with no apparent evolutionary sequence.
Also, I would suggest that the idea of life springing from non-life goes against every law of nature that we currently espouse.
"We are ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth." I think those who wish to rely solely upon scientific evidence should understand that scientists do not have all the answers.
If a theory cannot be proven time and time again, it is not evidence at all. If there are any variances to the theory, the theory is null and void. There is no scientific evidence that supports the "theory" of evolution. As a matter of fact, the creator of the "theory" has stated his Mea Culpa. What more do you need?
God bless youOK. You are very convincing. Now since you have thoroughly and convincingly debunked evolution, what are the implications?
Are we to, now, take the reasonable route, and say we just don't know? Or do we now look to the only other source of information on this subject--the bible-- for the answer?
God bless you.Thank you. Take the reasonable route, but don't give up the quest.
All any of us have to go on is what we have been taught. Sometimes that teaching has been from erroneous sources. That is the reason we should all study for ourselves and not just take the word of others about what we should believe.
The Bible is a wonderful source of information pertaining to anything to do with human beings. We just need to study it closely and use reference materials as well.
I know that for myself, I was taught replacement theology from the time I was a child, but when I started studying for myself, I found that the Jews remain the chosen people of God. This does not mean that Gentiles cannot be grafted in as sons and daughters of God as well.
"Study to show yourself approved, a workman that needs not to be ashamed."
God bless youSo if the bible is the answer, it means that you and I will have put it through the same rigid, and even unreasonable, stringent tests as we did evolution, right?
So let the tests begin.
As this is your statement below:
All any of us have to go on is what we have been taught. Sometimes that teaching has been from erroneous sources. That is the reason we should all study for ourselves and not just take the word of others about what we should believe.
That is not the only "other" source. There are many, all of which can only be confirmed by within you.
Hey, Baileybear, there you are again. I am thrilled that you are following my comments.
Evidence of creation is all around you. You might want to take a look at the book I suggested before, "The Language Of God" by Francis Collins. You will get a better explanation from a scientific point of view.
God bless youWow, sounds like a interesting book!
Collins rejects Creationism and Intelligent Design, so you may not want to read his book after all, WOC.
Randy, Please read my reply again. I never stated I would read the book.
I don't expect you to read anything, WOC! You have trouble enough understanding your ancient novel, much less anything factually based. Better stick to biblical fiction.
Randy, I choose not to bicker with your false assumptions of me. You seem to delight picking fights with believers on the sly. It's very evident in your posts. Have a happy day.
Nothing is on the sly, WOC. But it seems if I disagree with you I am picking a fight. Believe me, if I choose to pick a fight with someone, it will be a person able to defend themselves adequately, not you. Your responses are no challenge whatsoever.
Eaglekiwi, His goal to insult with unkind words does not bother me at all.
Nor does it bother me for you to insult with kind words. The results are the same. You know, such as saying "God bless you" to someone who isn't religious.
The science of molecular biology wouldn't exist if evolution was not correct.
Of course, your husband must have published his findings in peer reviewed journals and the entire scientific community agrees with his findings? Yet, nothing of the sort has ever come to light. Why is that? Can you provide this evidence from your husband?
I suspect though that no such evidence or proof will be forthcoming as it unlikely your husband is a molecular biologist and that your claims only support the title of this thread, if nothing else.Bless your heart Beelzedad. You do present an effective challenge. However, molecular biology exists because everything begins at the molecular level, but does not exist because of evolution. Of course, that was not your statement was it?
In the arena of cause and effect, where did evolution get its start if there were no molecules to begin with?
It does not matter to me whether you believe my husband is a molecular biologist or not, or whether he has published papers. If you are as informed as you appear to think you are, you know that there will never be complete agreement among the scientific community about evolution, climate change, or any other issues that cannot be completely explained.
I did not state that my husband works in any arena where he publishes findings about evolution. What I did say was that as a molecular biologist, he understands that intelligence is the only way life could ever have been created in the first place.
Thank you for the opportunity to explain.
God bless youThe current state of the science of molecular biology exists because evolution is correct. If evolution was not correct, there would be no molecular biology science as it currently sits.
Why were there no molecules to begin with? Please explain your claim.
I know you don't. Believers do not care if their fabrications are believed or not, which again supports the title of this thread.
Yes, there is agreement with evolution in all sciences.
Clearly, he is a very bad molecular biologist and has no idea what he's doing or it's all a complete fabrication.
You didn't explain anything, you merely continued to support the thread title.Never said there were no molecules to begin with. Instead I said there would be no way that evolution could take place without molecules. Maybe you should reread for clarity.
Of course, there is no "complete" agreement among the sciences. Otherwise, why would scientists be writing books disclaiming some of the work of other scientists. Get real here.
It is no wonder there is so much confusion when people deliberately misinterpret the words of others.
My husband can speak for himself on the issue of his intelligence and abilities. I can just tell you that, (even though you will refuse to admit the possibility) my husband has an IQ of 207. Surely that qualifies him as intelligent enough to reach his own conclusions.
God bless you sirYes, evolution can take place without molecules.
Yes, there is agreement amongst all the sciences that evolution is correct. You are free to show these books and their disclaimers.
And, when people fabricate stories to support their beliefs.
No, it does not. Nor, does it show that he is a molecular biologist. All it shows is that you are most likely fabricating more stories to support your beliefs.Then, put him on here as I have many questions regarding his so-called proof.
Like most of the thumpers, she talks, but she's afraid to back up her words. Several of us have asked her to back up her words but she cannot. She hurts her beliefs much more than we ever could. I love when these types show their ignorance on these forums. They defeat their whole purpose. LOL!
The whole title of this thread is incorrect to begin with.
Your statement only upholds the truth of the topic.
Almost everytime you, and other creationist post a reply, the title of this thread is confirmed to be correct.
When you try to destroy a well established scientific method, and replace it with the ignorant imaginations of deluded Bronze Age goat herders, dishonesty is the best tool you have in your arsenal.
I see almost no integrity among any creationists. It's really sad when one feels an obligation to lie for his/her imaginary God, in order to promote that God's "truth"I think we need to start another post about evoultion. Maybe, "Why do Evolutionists need to disprove the Existence of God? Or Maybe: "Why are Evolutionists so Angry? How about: "Why are Evolutionsists so arrogant? One more: "Why do Evolutionists throw out the concept of God and put themselves in His place."
Please feel free to start those threads. You'll find that if evolutionists are indeed angry, it is because they work hard at what they do but are constantly bombarded with lies from believers who have no understanding of what they do.
I know that it is futile but I have to say this. There are many in the Scientific community who are actually Christians. They don't feel that they have to disprove the existence of God in order to remain true to their integrity and their Science. And I know that there are Christians who are Scientists that also believe in Evolutionary theory. My problem is not with them. My problem is Scientists who have made Evolution a philosophy of life and attempt to disprove the existence of God.
When you make Evolution into a philosopy rather than a Scientific theory, you are adding baggage to it that it cannot sustain. Also, it is not Science any more. It is ideology.Charles Darwin did not set out to disprove the existence of God. It was to his dismay, as he clearly surmised that it was not up to him, but science, itself, that disproves your absurd religious books.
Just as I have a problem with Pastors who have made psychotic fairytales into a religion, then plan their whole life around this childish worldview, then attempt to disprove reality.No, there isn't.
You are free to engage or refute evolution in any manner you wish, but first you should actually have an understanding of evolution and science before you do.I didn't know that you could doubt something that can easily be proved to be fact- The fact that there are Scientists that actually believe in a supreme being!
And where is it that you see that I am wrong in my reasoning. It is not enough to just dismiss what I say by saying I need more education. Educate me by telling me where I am wrong.Oh yes, I'm sure there are a few scientists who believe in a supreme being. So what? They are scientists who are not honest with themselves, but that doesn't mean they can't carry out research or do experiments.
You don't have any reasoning, at least none that I've seen. All I can glean from your posts is that you have no understanding of science or evolution.All I am asking is how a person with any understanding can believe that a universe as vast and complex as this can ultimately arise from nothing? Your precious evolutionary theory cannot explain it. I may have said much that may or may not be scientifically valid. But surely you can see the validity of this question. Out of nothing, nothing comes.
And to say that this question will ultimately be resolved with further research is a matter of faith and not science.Unlike yourself, others have an understanding of such concepts, hence they need not just believe because their understanding follows nature and the physical laws of the universe.
Of course it can't, evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. Notice that you have no understanding whatsoever of these concepts yet are trying to dismiss them?
I understand those concepts and understand how nothing can come from nothing when it comes to the beginning of our universe. You on the other hand do not understand these concepts and instead are sitting here wondering how it's possible. Notice that some homework on your part will answer your questions.
Not at all, faith has nothing to do with it, it's all science. Sorry you don't understand that either.
There is no need for that. Your concept of God is so nonsensical that it doesn't need to be disproved to be dismissed. It's just that believers are too fearful, and angry to accept it.
First, I would like to see your evidence of the truthfulness of that question.
I don't know of any evolutionist who has a desire to put himself in the place of an imaginary being. Why do you feel compelled to be dishonest for your imaginary God? I thought that was the job of Satan.
Yet another post that confirms the title of this thread is correct.As to whether evolutionists believe they are god or not depends on your definition of god. One definition which applies to this discussion is: "The supreme and ultimate reality." Another is: "A person or thing of supreme value." Many people who deny a supreme being put themselves into both these categories. If man evolved and had no supreme being that created him,then he is the highest level on the evoultionary chain. He has reason and is capable of creating and manipulating things to his will. Many people, including Scientists believe that nothing is impossible for them given enough time and research. They are indeed their own gods.
And what a pitiful god they make.I doubt very much that we are at the highest level of the evolutionary chain. The only thing we have that differs to other species is consciousness...or at least as we know our consciousness to be. Many animals seem to have more heightened senses than humans. Their sight, sound, speed, agility seem to be far more advanced than ours. Says a lot about the evolutionary process and its innate ability to maintain a kind of balance.
you can even argue that...Actually I can prove you wrong, but then you seem to be nice so I won't even bother.
Actually I don't know whether we are or we are not. I was making an observation with the limited knowledge I do have. So would be great if you can explain what you understand. How is it that we (human beings) are at the top of the evolutionary chain when earth and the universe etc have been here longer than us? Does being at the top of the evolutionary chain mean something else or have a different process.
Or was your post referring to the consciousness part of my post. It really did not point to my understanding of consciousness as a whole. My main point was the evolutionary bit.it is an argument that is going on because the definition of consciousness is yet to be resolved. as for brain systems that is also under dispute. So I could run you by them or you could visit another forum that I posted and its all there.
I've never seen those definitions, where did you get them?
Here's a couple of definitions from a dictionary:
"Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.
A man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people."
To have an understanding of evolution would mean one would understand there are is no such thing as the "highest level on the evolutionary chain"
Those same scientists who you consider 'pitiful' are working on cures for diseases, new energy resources, better technology to allow you to have a computer and internet connection so you can post here on these forums, which is something else scientists have provided.I got the definitions out of the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Those weren't the only definitions it mentioned, but they were in there.
As to man not being the highest level of evolution, that may not be true if you stick to the basic Science. But some adherents to evolutionary theory feel so far superior, not only to the animals but to people of differing points of view, you at least think that they consider themselves gods. It is more an arrogant attitude of "I know it all" than actually saying it.
And to the many Scientists that have helped to advance the technology that we use and all of the other advancements that have made this world a better place to live, I give my thanks and applaud them. And, I thank God that He has given them those abilities. But Science is not omnipotent, nor omniscient. Neither are the Scientists. We cannot say that Science has all the answers and no one or nothing else has any of them. Arrogance is unbecoming to a scholar.No one here has ever said science has all of the answers, GT! But science does yield obvious answers, unlike your imaginary deity. Tell me this, which god was Jim Jones following when he convinced his willing followers to kill themselves? Jesus detested church leaders you know.
yep, he hated the stupid rule book and ate without washing his hands.
I've never seen those definitions in any dictionary, Websters included, but I'll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt.
It's not only science, but by definition, too.
Who, for example? I have no idea as to whom you're referring?
In other words, god did it again. I'm sorry to say that those folks would be quite insulted to hear something like that considering how hard they worked themselves. They understand completely your mythical god had nothing to do with their abilities.
It's not a matter of arrogance, it's a matter of performance, which is where mythical gods and religions fail miserably at providing answers.
GodTalk, I was surprised when I first saw the title on this thread. From the first day I participated in the religious threads, many of the evolutionists have continually attacked the believer's faith and ridiculed a God who they say doesn't exist. As you can see, the repeated cycle has not ended. All is well. God is Great!
Yes. It is good to know that our God is not in the least worried about His enemies and what they might say about Him. His only concern regarding them is that He loves them as much as He does those who follow his Son. I just hope that they too may know the God who loved them enough to become one of us and then to die on their behalf.
Is your god dead? I didn't know gods could die? Can they?
No, my God is very much alive. Jesus had to become man in order to die as our substitute. His resurrection proves that He was who He claimed to be-God in human flesh.
But, you just said he died??? Here are your words:
How can your god be very much alive if he died???
Then, Jesus was a man and he wasn't a god???
That would be the same as a wolf in sheep's clothing. If Jesus was a god in human flesh, then he wasn't a man, he was a god and the flesh was nothing more than a body suit.The interesting thing about you is that you probably know what I believe already, and yet you just like to cause arguments. You know perfectly well that Jesus is both God and man, according to Christian beliefs. He had two natures when He became flesh, a sinless human nature and at the same time did not give up an ounce of his divinity. And as a man, He could indeed die. Yet He was raised from the dead and lives forevermore.
By the way, isn't the picture next to your name Einstein. Didn't he believe in a god?That is not true, you have made claims that are contradictory and I am asking for clarification.
No, I don't know that, I only know of the many similar types of claims made about Jesus that other believers here have put forth.
If Jesus was both god and man, then he was still a god, which means he could not die. As a god, he simply adorned a "human body" in order to walk and talk amongst the people. His 'body suit' was destroyed by the Romans, but that part of him that was god did not die.
But, as a god, he could not die, which means he never did die, only his 'body suit' died.
Who was raised from the dead?
No, he didn't.
How do you figure either god or Jesus made such a great sacrifice when resurrection is so easy for either of them? What had either of them to lose?
- the thing is. I absolutely can see where the bait is.
Well good evening Myth Beltran!
Where have you been lately?I was featured in the Joseph Campbell Foundation MYTH Blog!
So happy my face is posted right under Joseph Campbell's and other myth folks myth talking about it.I guess I missed that exciting event. Did I myth anything? LOL!
Nah...it's the same-o same-o, you've heard it ten million times.
Jesus gave up the glory of Heaven to spend 33 years on a planet full of people who were anything but glad to have Him there. He, the creator and sustainer of the universe, had to take on the limitations of our humanity. He had to suffer the agony and indignity of the cross and finally death. How is that easy?
Not so hard when you know you aren't really going to die. Big deal sacrifice, plenty of humans have done the same with no guarantee they could just pop back up. And what did god give up? Absolutely nothing. For all we know Yoshua didn't feel a thing. What a bogus sacrifice which actually sacrifices nothing at all.
Agony and indignity? If he was a god he would have already known what to expect. You'd have thought a god could have come up with something a little more believable.
I find it absolutely amazing, and frightening, that a grownup can actually believe something this absurd.
You don't actually believe that some mystic, sentenced to death by crucifixion really is the "sustainer of the universe" do you?
If that's true I'm absolutely sure I'm living in a parallel universe.You may have a point. Perhaps you are living in a parallel universe, complete with energy or matter that can create itself or more possibly, somehow always exist. It can cause a whole orderd universe that seems to have a designer but doesn't. This universe also seems to have the ability to "create" complex multi-celled creatures that can be so developed as to create for themselves vast civilizations, and in those civilizations they can create the technology in which they can, at the touch of a few keys, send their ideas throughout cybe=space. Sounds logical to me! LOL
Obviously, the question you gave in your comment was rhetorical. You know which God I espouse. The difference between other gods and the God of the Bible is that God came to earth when Jesus Christ was born, He lived a sinless life, died on the cross for sins and rose again.
Now before you deny that Christ was an actual a person who lived, do your homework. It is a fact backed up by secular history. As to the resurrection, I would suggest that once you've established Christ's life, then consider the evidence for His resurrection. There is a lot of material out there which talks about this. Whether you believe it or not may be another story but at least you will know why I have come to believe in the risen Christ.Please show the authentic historical documents proving Jesus lived. Other than your novel, of course. You do know Jesus wasn't his real name don't you? And what do you call your particular cult? You seem to have a problem answering direct questions don't you?
First of all what does it matter what denomination I am? I have answered that before. I am an evangelical believer who believes the major truths of the Christian faith that have been taught for more than 2000 years. If you want to know the specifics, let me know but I want to address your more important question. Is Jesus historical?
As I have said, there are many secular sources from both the 1st and 2nd century which verify that Jesus was a real man and not just myth. I will name just three from men who had nothing to gain or lose by lying because they were not even remotely Christian:
Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies Jesus execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. He states: "Christus, the founder of the (Christian) name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius..."
Pliny the Younger (63-113 A.D.) Pliny admits to torturing and executing Christians who refused to deny their faith in Jesus Christ. Those who denied the charges were spared and ordered to exalt the Roman gods and curse the name of Christ. Pliny addresses his concerns to emperor Trajan that too many citizens were being killed for their refusal to deny their faith. I would quote him, but it is quite long.
Thallus (?-52 A.D.) Although his works exist only in fragments, Julius Africanus debates Thallus' explaination of the midday darkness which occurred during the Passover of Jesus' crucifixion. Thallus tries to dismiss the darkness as a natural occurrence (a solar exlipse) but Africanus argues that a solar eclipse cannot physically occur during a full moon due to the alignment of the planets.
As I said, there are more, but this shows secular evidence for the historical Jesus.Sorry GT, but the earliest recorded mention of Jesus was 20 years after the Crucifixion was to have happened. None of those you mentioned claimed to have seen him or to have witnessed his death.
Of those you mentioned, only Thallus could have been alive at the time and he only discusses the darkness which supposedly happened during the crucifixion. The writer of the gospel of Mark is suspected of using the works of Thallus to lend credibility to the book. But I can understand how you want to believe it's true, though.As I said, I could go on but it would be futile, because you are so hardened against belief in any god that no evidence would make you believe.
By the way, I still seem to have more evidence for the historical Jesus than you have explainations as to where life came from.By the way, did you know that the historicity of Alexandar the Great and his military conquest is drawn from five ancient sources, none of whom were eyewitnesses? And the primary account of Alexandar's life was written by Plutarch around 400 years after he lived. Maybe we should doubt the existence of Alexander the Great.
This is the precise point - the existence of Alexander is corroborated by several written sources, the existence of Alexandria the city (although I only assume this was named after him) and a multitude of references at temple sites where he rebuilt or caused to be built various monuments and buildings. And not even a jesusville on the map, not one mention of him in the multitude of records that survive from that time in named sculptures or any other source except the novel. If you can't see this difference then you are a hopeless case.
The question is, is it reasonable to expect things like that which corroborate Alexandar's historicity. Jesus was not a prominent figure at the time or a government leader. He was essentially an itinerant preacher, with few possessions, and he eventually suffered death like a common outlaw. The Romans wouldn't have recorded his life with an inscription or statue.
Also, Jewish archeological evidence for the entire period is rather sparse. There are the remains of large Roman cities, and some inscriptions of leaders, including Herod, Pilate, and Festus who were all mentioned in the New Testament. There are also influential Jews such as Caiaphas, but practically nothing on ordinary folks. And remember that in A.D. 70 Jerusalem was totally destroyed by Titus. What may still exist is buried under the thriving modern city. So the odds are against an artifact's survival.
One artifact that was uncovered recently is an ossuary, a medium sized box in which human bones were placed for permanent burial after the flesh had all decayed. An inscription has been etched into the side which reads: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" in Aramaic. After careful studies researchers determined the inscription to be genuine.
All three names were common in that era, but seldom was the deceased's brother mentioned unless that brother was noteworthy. To have all three listed, in correct Biblical relationship certainly supports the possibility of this being the ossuary of the Biblical James.By the way, this has nothing to do with the last post, but I just thought I'd throw it in. Dr. Arthur Conklin, once a biologist of Princeton University wrote: "The probability of life originating from an accident is comparable to the probability of an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop" LOL!
That has been debunked so many times, it's not even funny - it's the same as the tornado in a junkyard which really cannot serve as an analogy for abiogenesis or evolution. Please look this up as anyone who says this does not correctly understand how evolution or abiogenesis works.
This goes right to the title of this thread, Simeon. This is what I mean about pastors preaching to their congregation. The listeners are trusting their souls to preachers who have no idea what they are talking about.
These preachers are respected by their church members and take their representation of, not only interpretations of biblical scripture, but matters of science they know nothing about. And the people believe it to be true.For those who don't know it is th study of how life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life is said to have arisen on earth. Most amino acids, often called the building blocks of life, can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life. I could get into how these experiments are flawed for several reasons but don't want to bore anyone any more than I already have. But despite these experiments, life has not been formed in the laboratory. And they cannot compare to the complexity of one single living cell, let alone multiple celled living organisms.
I will concede the quote since I don't know of the debunking but there are other reputable scientists that don't believe in an intelligent designer. If you want a list then I can do that.Flawed experiments huh? You mean moronic idiot scientists not as well educated as yourself drawing flawed conclusions I suppose?
Yes - the vast majority of the scientific community does not believe in an intelligent designer.
Still - seeing as you are a big fan of the scientific method now - can you provide us with some of the evidence of your Invisible Super Being please?
Thanks.So now you are saying that because the vast majority of Scientists don't believe in a god that means its not true?
Also, It wasn't me that came up with the ideas that these experiments were flawed. Just as you are, I am relying on people who have Science degrees and have spent much time looking into it. Peer review if you will.
And it is interesting that you can't see that we are both relying on faith. You in your faith of abiogenesis. Mine in the God of Genesis.Yes - I understand that you think my lack of belief is exactly the same as your faith in the Invisible Super Being.
I do not know how life (as we understand the term) started in the first instance. I said this in the past - and you know I said this.
You are the one saying that you do know how life began.
But you have failed completely to back up your assertion with any evidence - or even a reasonable argument. This is why it is considered nonsense.
If you backed your assertion with anything - I would be open to listening to you. But you do not. You do not even have a reasonable argument. So I see no reason to believe it.
Yes - peer reviews - this is how the scientific community and subsequently us laymen come to conclusions. They have concluded life evolved and that there is no need for an Invisible Super Being to be involved.
You say you know better than the entire scientific community and dispute proven facts.
I do not believe you. You have not convinced me.Once again Science has never been proven wrong, so I must bow to them no matter what they claim. Oh wait! They have been proven wrong in the past. There goes that argument!
You have not convinced me either. Oh well, there's always tommorrow.Science is proven wrong all the time. That is how we learn and adapt what we know and does not mean that it is not useful knowledge and it certainly does not mean that your default answer of majick with zero evidence is correct.
You are the one making the assertion.
You are the one claiming to know how life started.
You are the one with the burden of proof.
I do not believe you, because you talk nonsense, you are aggressive and unreasonable, and have not made any sort of attempt at reasonable argument. All you have done is disputed scientific facts using spurious and untruthful arguments and out of date Christian apologetics. We evolved. No question remains. We do not yet know how life started. You say you do know.
I am not going to convince you of anything because you already know everything.
I - on the other hand - am absolutely open to being convinced with evidence of some kind. You prove your assertion - I am on board.
So you are saying because scientists haven't created life yet that it can't be done? So if they manage to do this it will change your mind?
If you can prove god exists it will certainly change mine!LOL His argument seems to be, "We have not yet managed to create life in a laboratory. Therefore life can only come about with majick called god so you need to worship jesus or burn in hell."
Or something like that. No wonder this religion causes so many wars.But just think how he will be able to tell his flock "I fought Satan's minions and defeated them with the word of God"! And they'll say "Amen Brother"! He will smile benevolently shaking his head slowly for effect. It will be a great show and many souls will be saved! LOL!
No, you couldn't go on because you have already shown well beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have absolutely no understanding of those experiments, evolution, science or much else aside from your bible.
I looked for Conklin's credentials but only found some of his sermons. A pastor apparently, and you know what that means. If you have a link where I can check out his bio I will take a look.
RD, have you ever read what Dr. Arthur Compton had to say about God? He was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, so I'd think he knew a little about science.
No, but I bet he thinks there is at least one!
I thought you might be interested because you are a seeker of knowledge. Compton's parents were religious - maybe his father was a minister? But the physicist's veiws on intelligent design are interesting. They don't agree with your views, however.
Macon is supposed to get 2 inches of snow tomorrow night! Wanna go sledding? We have 2 sleds and a saucer, and I'll share! lol
He is an interesting example of how hard it is to drop an irrational belief system that has been indoctrinated into you at a young age. Despite the fact that his theories clearly bring chance into the equation as being a prime mover in all physical occurrences - he nonetheless attempted to justify this as being intended and ended up contradicting his own work. Still - he was a preacher as well.
It is a very interesting example of the OP's question in fact. The man was obviously conflicted - his work in physics ended up directly contradicting his beliefs.
If I'm not mistaken there was also another brother listed who wasn't mentioned in the bible. As you said, common names. Like Jose and Maria in Hispanic countries. Multitudes of people with the same names.
Yes, there are mentions of factual people and places in the New Testament, but many novels use real history to make a story believable. The unknown gospel authors used historical documents to make their accounts seem reliable. They still got some of it wrong anyway.
How could he have verified it if he wasn't even born some years later. Do you see the obvious flaw here? And, there are no Roman records of the crucifixion of Jesus as state by Christians from which to verify. Do you see the obvious flaw here?
This does not indicate or proves in any way the existence of Jesus. And look, Pliny was also born many years later. Do you see the obvious flaws here?
I have no idea how this in any way shows that Jesus existed. It's nothing more than an argument to support a solar eclipse.Do you see the obvious flaws here?
What evidence? Where is it? You have not provided any evidence whatsoever.
And why in the heck would they wish to be like you guys? What nonsense! LOL!
In other words, we should engage in blatant self-deception.If you mean that the fact that you don't worry what an enemy says about you is self-deception then I disagree. No matter what you do or what you believe in life, there will be people who oppose you. The only time you have to worry about that is if what they are saying is valid. Self deception is to start believing that those who disagree with me have valid points just because they continually call me names or call in to question my character simply because I disagree with them.
And what enemy would that be, GT? Anyone who doesn't think like you?
If you knew me, you'd know that I have friends with all sorts of beliefs. For that matter, I have close friends who don't have a faith in God. To disagree with me, doesn't make you my enemy. If we met in person I would treat you with the same respect that I would hope you would me.
My enemies are enemies only because they chose to be. I can't make someone like me. And I won't waste my time fretting if they don't. It would seem a waste of energy when there are so many people who appreciate me for who I am despite what I believe-right or wrong.Likewise for me, as far as different thinking friends are concerned. I am smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt so I have to get along with believers. In fact, I spent much of my early years bored to death listening to your type of preaching. I didn't believe it then either.
I've never met a preacher I truly respected. They all get a kick out of giving their version of the scripture to their flock. A power trip, if you will. I think Jesus would not have approved of pastors. But I'm sure you disagree.I don't totally disagree. I think that there are a number of pastors who are wolves in sheeps clothing and are seeking their own interests. I think that some pastors are in it to influence people to their way of thinking rather than to that of God's Word. There are some who are getting far away from Biblical Christianity and preaching a health, wealth and prosperity gospel rather than one of redemption from sin. In so doing, they are the ones becoming wealthy. The Bible said that in the last times, people like this will arise. It is these preachers that give Christianity a bad name.
But at the same time I have met many pastors with great integrity, who love God and the people that they serve. It is my prayer that I will be able to emulate these pastors in my own ministry.
This brings to mind a discussion on another thread. It is about people who resort to name calling and insulting others on their chosen ways of "being". Be it through words or actions. People will always usually have an opinion. However, those seeds that give life to these opinions are usually within the one giving the opinion. May not necessarily have any thing to do with the person they have an opinion about.
More often than not, it is a reflection of something about ourselves we don't like.
If we know ourselves well without the self deception. We are less likely to be affected by any ones opinion even if they resort to name calling or insulting.
It has nothing to do with name calling. You know that most of what you have heard from the opposition makes way more sense than the nonsense you are asserting.Let's see! I've been called a liar, stupid, a person who speaks nonsense. My beliefs have been called magical, mythical and have been answered with sarcasm and I'm sure you can think of a few more. I think it has everything to do with name calling and nothing to do with proving a point.
From what I have seen, the people that have angrily spoken against a god are just as much people that have been hurt by religious people in the past as they are atheists. I think that is your source of rage and not God.You are so right. Nonbelievers are not angry at God, because they don't believe in God. Thank you for understanding that.
Since there is no God, then it would be nice if PEOPLE would stop lying to us about something of which they have no evidence.
There is no God. And those who keep spouting this nonsense are starting to look more and more idiotic everyday, as the stellar advances through the hard work of science render their Bronze Age Myths completely incorrect.Yes, I'm sure you'll call those who expose your flagrant fabrications for what they are as "angry atheists" and that they must have had some bad experience with religion.
There is no rage, there is only the ignorance and delusion of irrational beliefs being discussed.
Would that be the same god that you are unable to show exists or is that another one of the many, many gods someone else couldn't show existed? LOL!
getitrite, Randy- You got to be kidding
Bless your heart.
Yet, you nor anyone else has shown it to be incorrect, in fact, the exact opposite has occurred.
Bravo! Well written.
We all know that the whole belief system about Evolution has been propagated on a mere theory. That is not the scientific method of proving anything. It is just the beginning of the process. No one has ever proven the theory to be correct, although some people would prefer not to believe in God.
That is the right of every individual to believe whatever they wish. However, when an individual begins to try to convince others that their belief system is the correct one, they begin to make that belief system a religion. They are truly worshiping their own god. So true atheism only exists prior to the conviction that they must bring others on board with their way of thinking.
We don't have to prove that God exists, we just have to believe that He does. He is big enough to reveal Himself to those who seek Him.
If you do not believe that God exists, you would also have to believe that there would be no harm done if you explored the possibility. Before saying that there is no God, use the scientific method and do your own study of the facts. One should not believe anything that they have not seen proof of for themselves.
When we take the word of others, on any subject, we become followers rather than in charge of our own destinies. Real, true, independent thinkers take the time to study in order to form their own opinions.
May God bless you with an awareness of Himself.-
You still haven't answered the question.
Do you feel that evolution disproves your particular Invisible Super Being?Sorry to jump in here. But I don't see why the two don't coexist. I'm not going to look up any sites to support what should be common knowledge to most of us here. Little things like amphibians who once were only aquatic, the non-necessity of the appendix. The ability to record and research evolution has not been around long enough for us to know just how much evolution has taken place but there is no denying that it has. Man's individual lifespans are not long enough to evolve at any great rate probably because there is no biological need to prolong life in any way. The concept of ID is another, much longer argument, one which I believe would necessarily involve a discussion of intangibles and unproveables.
Evolution is a "theory" not proof of anything.
But so is your religion. There is far more proof of evolution than an invisible deity. Can you prove there isn't many god? LOL!
Oh yes Randy, there are many gods. The Bible tells us that this is true. These gods, however, are created by the people that worship them. Not true with the one true and living God.
My God may be invisible, but He is more real than anything else in my life. I did not create Him to sit on a shelf and do nothing as other faiths might do. He chose me, and then I chose to believe in Him.
He lives in my heart, and makes me who I am. I cannot prove that He exists, I can only tell you that I believe that He does. You will have to decide for yourself what you believe.
As far as evolution is concerned, read some of my other posts to find out what I believe about that. There is no irrefutable evidence that evolution is responsible for life on this earth.
Proof of God exists everywhere you look on this earth. You just have to know what you are looking for.and this is what faith is, believing without evidence. If we could walk to a place and point God out (there he is sitting on his throne) then there would be no need for faith. God tried this approach once and it did not work, people still did their own thing and this is true again, people would still do their own thing even if God were seated in jerusalem in a holy temple, the people in the usa and canada, south america, norway, germany will all do their own thing.
There is no point to proving God exists it will not make anybody holy or keep them sinless.
Once again the christians have their proof and the atheist get what they deserve.
God is just
you just contradicted yourself - you said you can't prove God exists; then said proof of God exists everywhere
No contradiction. I cannot prove that God exists to anyone, but proof of His existence is all around us.
Many people will not accept proof of any fact, even when it is presented in a scientific format, and they will tear apart that proof to see if they can debunk it.
I can prove that God exists for myself, but that is not good enough for others. I know He exists, because I have personal evidence of the fact. You would probably not accept that evidence because you most likely have preconceived notions about what God should be.
God reveals Himself to those who seek Him, but He does not force Himself upon anyone.
God bless youNotice that if one is unable to show anyone else their so-called "proof" of something, that something can only exist within their imaginations.
Then, by all means show us your personal evidence. Show us that it's not just your imagination, otherwise it appears that imagination is all you have. That's not evidence, as everyone has imaginations.
In other words you don't have any real evidence, and you want us to just accept your imagined reality as fact.
It appears that to seek God, I must first become delusional. How else does one seek an imaginary being?
And since God is not real, it is apparent that He won't force Himself upon anyone, because imaginary beings can't do anything...why? Because they are imaginary.
And yet, that's exactly what followers of other religions think about your god.
Is your god more real than the computer in front of you and the forum you're writing your words? If that were the case, you could easily show your god to everyone just like you can show your computer and these forums to everyone.
We knew that all along. It is no different from any other believer of any other religion in the world. Welcome to their world.
From that statement, it's clear to me that you have no understanding of evolution. It is also obvious your husband is not a molecular biologist.
And, what would that be, exactly?There is one major flaw with evolution!
Yes, my God is more real than anything else in the universe, he created it all. His word tells us not to "cast pearls before swine", so I guess He will decide when to reveal Himself to those who doubt His existence.
He also tells us that "it is an evil generation that is always looking for a sign."
What you believe is up to you. As a Christian, I can only present the truth to you and others, its up to you to decide whether or not you will believe it.
Of course, I understand what is meant by evolution. I understand what those who worship evolution mean by it, and what it really is. I think it is sad when others do not.
My prayer is always that God bless everyone with a full knowledge of His existence. Even satan and the demons believe, he just wants to be the one that is worshiped.
God bless youWhile I understand these are beliefs you hold and embrace, they mean absolutely nothing beyond your own imagination.
No, you do not present any truths, you only provide the myths and superstitions of the Bronze Age.
No, you do not, you have may that amply clear in your posts.
Yes, the myths and superstitious beliefs you hold are as invalid as any other religion. I understand completely.And your belief in something that supposedly happened once, but has never taken place again, is proof positive that evolution is responsible for life as we know it today.
Where are all the other blue balls out there to prove your theory. In science, it is not proof of anything if it cannot be replicated.
Where are all the other earths out there by the trillions?
Your neanderthal suppositions that life occurred spontaneously out of nothing takes greater faith than my belief in the one true and living God.
God bless youYes, what a fine christian woman you are Idamac. Writing "God Bless you" when directed to non-believer is an insult to some of us. But you know that, don't you? I would like to thank you, GodTalk, Roy, and the others for affirming the title of this thread.
None of you have shown the slightest bit of evidence supporting your belief in Creationism. I doubt any one of you can understand the most basic parts of the theory of evolution. What an education you guys must have had.
By the way, go outside and look at the stars if it isn't cloudy where you are. Aren't the stars beautiful? Did you know the light you see from distant stars has been traveling for hundreds of thousands of years since leaving the star? Funny how this can be when the earth is less than 10,000 years old, isn't it?
Perhaps one of you geniuses can tell me how this could happen when the universe wasn't here that long ago according to you guys. Don't all rush to answer at once! LOL!Come on believers, I'm going to ask this question until one of you brilliant creationists give a lucid answer.
Relative to what? If the universe doesn't exist, how can a non-existent star give off light in it? Your answer will explain it all, I'm sure. The scientists will be glad you've solved this enigma for them?
The scientists have already solved that for you, because you blindly assume this:
2/3(1/H)I would rather hear your version of this sequence, if you are capable of giving it. Please put it in such a way even I can understand it. Thank you so much for doing this for me.
To put it in another way for you to understand, you blindly believe in the Big Bang Theory and I don't.
I suppose you don't believe in math or physics either. No surprise to me at all. God dun it, right? LOL! Why don't you just say this every post, it's all you've got.
Yeah, I don't believe in math or physics, but you're asking me to explain it. You should at least try to understand what you believe before you make fun of what I do.
Not if you don't believe in math or physics. But do you really think I expect you to explain anything anyway? You merely like to opine without anything to back up your views. Prove me wrong by backing up your statement, if you have the ability.
I already did, and you asked to explain it in a way that you could understand it. You didn't even bother to find out what it is. You're too quick to retort. You make assertions about religious people not understanding science, when you don't understand it yourself. Figuratively, you might hear me, but you don't listen.
You have said nothing which explains my question unless you think the speed of light changes to suit you. You have no idea how to answer the question and are afraid to try. You personify the title of this thread. How typical you are of the believers here. All talk and nothing else. Bok, bok, bok! LOL! chicken $#!t!
Yes, resort to name calling when you don't understand the science of something. One day you may attempt to understand, and we can have civilized conversation about it.
You have explained nothing. Write it out instead of giving a formula or either just quit posting unless you would like everyone to answer you in the same manner. You don't have anything but are too frightened to admit it. Prove me wrong dude!
And no one called you a name either! I was merely describing your answer correctly.Your inference that formulas don't explain anything only amplifies your ignorance of the subject. You're right, only people who don't believe in God can understand anything about science. I shouldn't be explaining anything to you. It's your belief, you should be the one doing the explaining.
Why do you fell it necessary to misquote me? I didn't say formulas don't explain anything. And you are still afraid to give me your version of the answer. If not, you would do so instead of avoiding my request. You cannot do so and you know it. I dare you to try it,dude. Scared to try are you? LOL!
You are no different than the others who come on here and say things they have no basis for. Prove me wrong and I will be more than happy to apologize to you. If you are afraid to do so, then don't make statements you cannot back up.If you agree that formulas explain things, then we shouldn't be having this conversation. But we are, because you don't understand what the formula explains. No need to "prove you wrong", as long as you continue to think you're right that's all that matters. It's your world bro, we're just livin in it.
Bok. bok, bok,! LOLOLO! I understand you all right! LOL! You don't have a clue! Typical christian.
There was never any doubt you weren't knowledgeable enough to answer the question. Mainly because it would be impossible for light to escape a non-existent star Thanks for admitting it! You can leave now
Oh, so that's the answer. Why didn't you just say so.
So does this have something to do with the speed of light?
Translation- I don't know what I'm talking about! LOL!
Nope,
Translation: you should just do a little research, and you may learn something new. However, you don't speak the language, so a majority of it may not make much sense to you. You may actually, gasp, dare I say it,have to build a foundation first.Try me, I'll let you know if I can't keep up with your brilliant response.
ediggity, the reason I asked was because I remember as a result of Einsteins theory of relativity, he theorized that as an object approaches the speed of light(186,000 MPS)time slows down. Then, theoretically, if an object was to attain the velocity of light, time should, theoretically, stop.
Einstein also theorized that nothing can attain a speed faster than the speed of light...because that might indicate that time would start going backward.
No worries, I have seen this before where this member throws a dart at a board, takes whatever the dart landed on and tosses the information out making ridiculous claims and then telling everyone else to do the homework to confirm the ridiculous claim without even having a grasp of what it was they tossed out.
Seems to be batting a thousand on that.
I will admit that I myself cannot prove the evolution theory...nor can I prove the creation theory...I can prove that I exist...at least in my own mind at least...and other than that fact I really don't care how I got here. I will say that my Mother and Father created the body that I currently reside in... Using the bible as evidence is at best only a partial picture...as vast portions of the (scriptures) aren't even included in the bible that is followed today. And what about Greek or Roman "mythology"...we can't discount those theories either...(By the way Zeus and Apollo are mentioned in the book of Acts) so let us research all the "creation" theories if that is the "facts" we wish to follow...Just thinking out loud...
Doesn't hurt to think out loud. We usually learn something when we do.
I will never deny the existence of other gods, but they are not true and living ones like Jehovah God is. The Great I Am is the only true and living God and the one that created everything that was ever created.
Other gods are the creation of the people that worship them. Yes, Zeus and Apollo may be mentioned in the Bible, but they are not mentioned as worth of worship, and may have been created by the people that worship them.
There are some theories about them that are worthy of consideration. The Bible mentions that the Angels came down to earth and mingled with humans. That could be where Zeus and Apollo came from, I am not sure. If this is the case, people might have worshiped them due to the awesome nature they exhibited.
God bless youYou seem to miss the point.. I guess I should say this...If we are to "believe" the bible...then we should also look into the gods of the greeks and romans that are prior to the gods of the christian faith...since we were not present to see certian things for ourselves...then we must consider that any written word on gods could in fact be true and thus the "one true living god" could in fact be Zeus, Odin, Ra or any of the other gods listed in various texts. We are all free to believe as we feel is correct...but unless something can be proven as fact it is just a belief and therefore an unproven theory...and since the bible is only one version of gods, I would not conclude this one as the "proof"...
With all due respect, it is not true that Zeus, Odin, Ra or any other god predates the God of Christianity. The God of Christianity is the same God that created the universe. Therefore, He predates everything else.
Um, that logically applies to any God a person believes in--not any specific God. Objective indicators of specific gods with specific proporties do have different histories--with 'one god' systems coming after 'multi god' systems.
I didn't say that Zeus, Odin or anyone else predated any god...I simply stated that since there written words with other gods listed besides just the bible who is to say which one is correct...And just as a side note...have you studied any other mythologies aside from the bible...if not then how would you know which "religions" gods came first...the Christian "god" didn't come around until sometime between the 1st and 3rd century...the Jewish "god" has been "around" since about 1600BC...so either you are Jewish or you believe in a different god than what you are claiming...I.E. the Jewish God...which in case you don't know...doesn't have a "Son called Jesus"...nor does he have a "Holy Spirit". Now At this point I am going to say something that is "My Opinion Only" Beliefs are a good thing...I have my own beliefs...But I don't attempt to pass my beliefs off as "facts, truths, or unchangable" While the bible has alot of good thoughts it is in the end still just a book...same as the books on mythology or various other belief systems...and since none of us can personally verify the accuracy of any of them, we have to take from them the understanding that we get from them and nothing else...If someone walks around claiming that "god" is speaking to him and that we all must jump around in a circle 3 times before crossing a street...we would call him crazy...yet we as humans are willing to believe the "facts" of a book written many years ago from a time when most people thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth...Learning things for yourself and not blindly accepting something because everyone else is doing it... is a very enlightening experience...I agree, Double Scorpion, we should all research for ourselves in order to not just be following anything blindly.
My God is the same God of the Jewish people, and yes He does have a Son and His name is Jesus. Just because the Jewish faith does not recognize the Son does not mean that the Father is not one and the same.
My God, and the Jewish God did come first at the very beginning of creation. He has no beginning and no end. That means that all other gods came after Him. It also means that all other gods are man made and of no effect.
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
God bless you
One God, different interpretations.
Kinda like my cat. I call my cat precious. He is fiesty. He wanders off to my neighbours, they call my cat midnight. He is always hungry. Then he wanders off to another neighbour, they call him ceefa. He is always sleepy.
Same cat different perceptions, different name.but he is your cat and you told them his name. Since it is only a cat i would say the name is not all that important but lets say instead of your cat, your son went next door and they called him jimmy and the other neighbor sam and you called him bob... you might be inclined to tell them the truth and if they chose not to believe you....
You can see how the cat scenario is not really applicable here.Yes, I told them his name after they named him and after they had their own perception of his dominating nature.
Agree it is probably not applicable though because God does not belong to any one religion. God just is. Religions will claim it as their God and I see nothing wrong with that unless they claim that another interpretation of God is wrong.
People make God wrong or right, this or that or the other. God doesn't.
God doesn't physicall exist. Love doesn't either.
how many times do we hear the 'just a theory' refrain. Please learn what the difference between a hypothesis & scientific theory is
Very good Baileybear. You have done your homework. I must say that I appreciate the explanation. Not everyone takes the time to be as thorough as you have. Some would rather throw stones than to take the time to explain their thoughts.
I especially like the part that tells us that a theory is always under scrutiny.
I have to say here that I do not worship at the feet of science. The reason for this is that after several decades, I have noticed that science contradicts itself frequently. Often that contradiction comes too late for some. Sometimes its application is more detrimental than beneficial as well.
An example of that would be science applied to farming. Chemicals applied to farmland are supposed to be to help increase food production as well as provide better crops.
Yes, science is involved with farming, and nearly every other product that we purchase to make our lives better, including the vaccinations our children are compelled to undergo. No, I am not bashing vaccinations, there is not yet enough evidence of their potential for harm.
We also see lots of additional nutrients added to the food we purchase at grocery stores. This is supposed to be designed to better nourish our bodies. Science is involved here.
Building greater amounts of, and better food should create better health right?
Science applied to create more and better has seen a rise in the incidence of such disorders as diabetes and autism and cancer to name a very few.
I remember when the incredible edible egg took it on the nose as harmful to heart health, several years back. So did fat in our diets. Margarine was also touted as being better for us than natural butter. Science has since reversed itself, to some extent on those.
The scientific community often uses its knowledge to create substances that have the potential to do great harm to the masses, and encourages us to imbibe. Sure, I know that their intentions are good, but these substances are usually at the behest of conglomerates who just want to increase their bottom line.
I believe that adding unnatural chemicals to the body, regardless of its form, is detrimental over the long run.
Okay, so maybe I got off subject a little here, but my intention was to say that I do not rely on science as my sole source of knowledge. I ,hopefully, am intelligent enough to review the information and come to my own conclusions.
If you have read some of my other posts here, you will know that I do not disagree that evolution takes place, I just disagree that it is responsible for creating any kind of life, and that it created any species.
Science has never been able to completely prove that it has, no matter how some may try to convince us that it has.
God bless youSometimes zealots conveniently, and grossly, overlook the all of the livesaving discoveries that science has contributed over the years.
I'm sure there was no sense in Jonas Salk using science to create a vaccine for polio--or Luis Pasteur using science to discover the process of pasteurization, but they pale in comparison to the scientist in the following list:
Scientist #Lives saved Discovery
2. Karl Landsteiner 1.038 billion blood groups that led
to transfusions.
3. Norman Borlaug 245 million high-yield wheat.
4. Abel Wolman 173 million water chlorination.
5. Edward Jenner 122 million smallpox vaccination.
6. Bill Foege 122 million vaccine strategy that
eradicated smallpox.
7. John Enders 114 million measles vaccine.
8. Howard Florey 80 million penicillin
(first antibiotic).
9. Gaston Ramon 58.5 million diphtheria and
tetanus vaccines.
10. David Nalin 51.3 million oral rehydration
therapy for choleraYes, these are wonderful contributions of real science. People trying to use the theory of evolution to explain away the need for a creator is not.
By the way, one of the contributions of Pasteur and his pasteurization process was to debunk the theory of spontaneous generation which had held sway for centuries. This theory held that lower forms of life could come into being by the interactions of inanimate matter. For example, Aristotle thought that eels developed from river mud, putrefying meat was thought to turn spontaneously into maggots. Redi in 1686 disproved the latter, showing that if meat were covered in fine wire gauze, it putrefied but remained free from maggots, which instead hatched out on the protective covering where the flies had deposited their eggs. However, the idea of spontaneous generation in relation to microorganisms, such as Leeuwenhoek's animalcules, persisted until Pasteur's experiments on fermentation in Paris in 1861. Pasteur demonstrated that when organisms from the air were excluded from heat sterilized solutions like sugar solutions and urine, fermentation failed to take place. So Pasteur showed that the solutions did not generate their own microorganisms.
So Science was very useful, not only in the pasteurization procees itself, but was able to show that there isn't any evidence in nature, that we know of, that life can come from non-life.Science "was useful" but not for anything going against your novel, apparently. Still believe there were no rainbows until after the flood, even though we know rain isn't really required to produce them? That the light spectrum was non-existent until your god said it was okay?
I see you just chose one small phrase out of what I said to criticize. We are making progress. By the way, your answer my question on how life got here and I will answer yours.
First, tell me how god got here and how you know there is only one of them! Any proof you can show me?
And I've never had a problem with you telling the truth. LOL!
He'll get to that as soon as he thoroughly debubnks evolution.First of all, I never said that I disagree with the science that living things can adapt with changing environments in order for them to survive. That is clearly shown through the evolutionary theory. Where I can't go and where evolutionary theory breaks down is one species evolving into another. The fossil records clearly aren't there because they don't exist and never have. And, as you've said ad nauseum, evolution doesn't explain how life began and wasn't meant to do so. But the problem with this is, if it can't do this, then you cannot say that it proves that a god is unnecessary.
Neither does it prove the necessity of a God.
But let us say, just for the sake of argument, that it necessitates a God. Okay, where is this God? Surely he doesn't reside only in the pages of a Bronze Age book written by dubious authors, and which is full of ignorant superstitions, and contradicts itself and the laws of nature repeatedly.
Come up with a more reasonable God, then, prove this reasonable God exists, through a rigorous scientific method, and peer review, then you will have no problems. Good luck!
Great! But I just wish that this would, somehow, in someway, support your belief in a magical Sky Fairy. It just doesn't. Do you see what I mean?
Don't overlook them, just separate them. Some scientific discoveries have done great good for mankind. At least they have put an end to some diseases.
I stated my concern for some of the uses for science used improperly.
It is when they use science to create things that do us harm that I take issue with. Science used properly can be good, its when it is used to promote an erroneous ideology that it is
There is no sudden death warning on a gallon of milk, but nearly all pharmaceuticals produced in the past 20 years list sudden death as a side effect. Not so with a gallon of milk or stick of butter or a dozen eggs.
Science creates substances that have the potential to do good, but often, as I am sure you have noticed yourself, after causing enough deaths or disabilities, they have to be recalled or discontinued altogether.
God bless youI still don't think that is an ample reason to take the negative stance you have taken against science.
With just about anything there are side effects. With air flight came air crashes, so should we stop commercial airlines, and virtually slow progress to a crawl?
Science is not restricted to food. You seem to have an obsession with food. It seems you have some kind of experience with some of the side effects of plant and/or livestock engineering.
Science is a method, hence it can't contradict itself, by definition.
Please explain exactly what contradictions you refer. If they are so frequent, it should be easy to offer several examples.
Hence, it has nothing to do with the scientific community as they do nothing but research and development, it is the "conglomerates" who do the harm to increase their bottom line.
If you're going to dole out blame, dole it out to where it is deserved.
You are free to believe that just as you are free to believe in an invisible god, neither being substantiated.
It is clear by your posts that you don't understand those concepts, hence have no basis for disagreement. How can you possibly disagree with that which you have no comprehension?
Again, science is a method and isn't out to prove anything. If someone understood the concept of science, they would never say such things.
nothing scientific about evolution,It changes like the wind.theory does not match with the eveidence there4 should be thrown out and not preached in schools
Why do you refuse to answer my question? Or do you merely make stuff up like the other creationists on this thread?
How is the Judeo-Christian worldview any more narrow than that of evolution, or at least the form you seem to be espousing which seems to totally discount the possibility that there are things, beyond the empirical evidence that can be examined by the eyes. To think that Science has all the answers and religion has none is arrogant to the extreme.
it is true, they do have a very narrow world view and it is sad. i feel bad for people like this, and its not just the creationists. but yes, evolution could be god's greatest creation, perhaps he was just the spark.
Hmm, I sat here and considered the OP question, when it occurred to me it was rhetorical.
A creationist and an evolutionist are in the same classification.
One of the science entities assumes or accepts written documentation as validity (the creationist) while the other --oh wait, they do too, just different documents.
So, then, I asked myself which documents best "prove" either.
The results was actually a tie. Because both sets of documents were not designed to prove a thing, only to further a cause --keep the fires burning-- under these ideologies. In which case both elements of the scientific engagement are recumbent --or at least not testing the actual points thoroughly on either side to provide humanity with at best a valuable measure of the soluble tonic that will momentarily quench their thirst.
nonetheless, it was great reading!
BTW, as for the statement BB, why don't they follow the bible? The bible is a book, most cling to as an absolute --even to the point of worship. Seriously. But also, some worship other books -- disassociated theology with still result in the same result.
James.We have already been there on this thread as I see it similar to the way you have. haha.
Nope, evolutionary scientists do not believe their research is going to save their souls. Nor do they depend on their books to do so either.
Scientists challenge each others findings, religionists try to support each other in upholding the untruths in the bible scripture. Sorry you cannot tell the difference.
A lot of the old testament of the bible was originally written by the Sumerians, in Babylonia, around 4,000 b.c. Zechariah Sitchen's books are based on his translations of the ancient sumerian clay tablets and answered a number of questions I've always had about religion. i.e., 1) why were the early greek, egyptian, roman (and Sumerian) religions polytheistic?, 2) how is it that scientists never found the so-called missing link in human evolution? 3) why would an all-powerful creator be a jealous and vengeful god portrayed in the old testament? Sitchen's explanation was that the human race (or adami) were genetically engineered by a race of beings whose year was 3600 years long. They are the 12th planet in our solar system and came here to mine gold needed to preserve the atmosphere in their planet. The adami (humans) were created by splicing Annunaki genes with indigenous primates in south africa to create workers to mine gold and grow food for the "gods" who lived both on earth and in "heaven" in an orbiting space craft. They gave mankind all his knowledge of agriculture, metallurgy, astronomy and astrology, the first written language, all of which suddenly blossomed simultaneously in Babylonia some 6,000 years ago. It was related by the eye witnesses in the first written history of mankind. It could be myth and superstition, and so could the bible, but the fantastic story has a resonance of reality to me.
Because creationists haven't evolved!
Badumpbump.....HA!
Thank you thank you, I'll be here all week.It actually has to do with ignorance of what one is saying when one claims creationism or, concomitantly, evolution. Both claims require adherents that base their claims on a thing called faith. Creationists have faith that God created the planet in six 24-hour days, basing their faith on a theology that eliminates the law of physics, which God created. Evolutionists are just as guilty. They postulate that regardless of the existence of God or the nonexistence thereof, the spark began when once again the huge mass exploded and began moving outward while reformulating into the great universe as we know it today. The problem is that by taking God out of the quotient, evolution itself becomes a religion with a faith that everything must have happened as the greatest minds think it did. Life from nonlife is popular but that too violates physics.
I am neither creationist nor evolutionist. In 2 Peter it says that one day is with Jehovah as 1000 years and vice versa. In Isaiah, Jehovah is described as pure energy--and we all are familiar with E=mc(square).
I agree with those who are disturbed by the claims of creationists, but I tend to think they are letting misdirected faith to take over. I also believe that of the evolutionists. The truth is that God is not subject to time as we know it, something that He created for us, anyway.This is nsot correct in any way. Creationists rely solely on faith because there is no evidence of any kind to support the idea - NONE. Evolution is a theory supported by mountains of evidence that people ascribe to because they can believe the evidence that can be felt, touched and seen to fit together down the ages. Claiming any kind of relationship between the two issues is bul@@it and you know it.
If it were only that simple. Scientists do not have faith in something which they do not know is true. This is why several different dating methods cross check each other when testing the age of fossils.
If a scientist is wrong, it will eventually be discovered by other scientists. This is science and no particular speculation is worshiped as being true. Vastly different than the approach to religion. It wishes to be accepted as true without anything to show that it is, or isn't.
Edit : Sorry China Man, beat me to it!
So could you explain to me exactly how God created time?That was the easiest one of all. The Bible states that Jehovah is "Eternal" and "from everlasting to everlasting." There is only one way that He can achieve this: the lack of time as we know it. Note that this is a lack of time "as we know it". He is also said to be able to see the end of a matter before the beginning of it. Again, this is a indication that He has some other factor that has come into play here, a factor in the great beyond that is lost to us.
Having created the universe, with its galaxies and solar systems, and stars and planets, novas and supernovas, He recognized the need to set a timetable, one that would allow humans to govern themselves as they conduct their daily chores. This timetable probably began with the creation of the earth many huge eons ago.
Why do evolutionists tell such outrageous LIES to attack creationists?
If someone wants to believe in God, does not he/she have the right to do so?
If another person chooses not to believe in God is that not their right?
Why is Christianity such a sore point in the hearts and minds of people who claim God doesn't exist? If you're right about His non-existence, what are you worried about?
Why can't you go on with your lives, instead of posting the same thread again and again using different titles?
Why don't people who claim Christians are trying to shove God down their throats realize they are doing the same thing as they try to disprove God's existence and man's need for Him? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
Do people not have religious freedom in America? Or is relligious freedom reserved for all except for those who call upon the name of Jesus?
Why can't you do more constructive things with your life and your time, instead of trying to continually belittle those who don't believe as you?That question has been put to Christians for 2000 years.
And yet it wasn't a Christian who started these threads to try to belittle others and make youselves feel more superior. Well from what I've witnessed your beliefs aren't any more superior to mine or the majority of the world that believes in a supreme being of some kind. You have just as many things you simply assume to be true, just because someone has told you it is so. "What breathtaking and astounding ignorance", to quote someone famous.
No - this thread was started because you and others that believe as you do tell lies in support of the weird ideas of creationism. After hundreds of posts and prevarication we still have not seen one item of EVIDENCE to support (not prove, just support) your ideas.
Attacking evolution and science to try to bring it down to your level is not evidence of any kind it is an attemp t to blur the lines to a retarded point where your retarded ideas can exist.
If you can't give any evidence that the world started 7000 or so years ago or that we all started from the instantaneous arrival of two people around 7000 years ago - then you should go back to your drawing board and try to find some. In the process of failing to do so you might get some grasp of evolution. You might also get some enlightenment of how science works, you might even get to thinking for yourself.As if you are thinking for yourself. I could be wrong but are you a Scientist? Maybe you are, but I would be willing to bet that you haven't made any of these so called Scientific discoveries but are relying on people who have told you things. In this case it is that the whole universe came from nothing and even though it looks like it has design, it clearly cannot be designed because there just cannot be a creator. And life, clearly can come from non-life even though it goes against all of the known laws of the universe as we know it. Just given enough time, the impossible is possible.
You call my creator a magical being. Well how magical is your belief that a whole universe just came into being on its own!For the record, I have nothing against real Science. I believe that the dedicated men of Science have done much to make this world a much better place in which to live. But Evolutionary theory, in so much that it tries to go beyond showing how living things are cabable of adapting to differing environments, is clearly unprovable and unscientific. And many people, denying the existence of God, have tried to make it into a whole philosophy of life. That is the thing to which I am opposed.
You ask me to prove what I believe. I challenge you to prove to me that this universe, and everything in it came ultimately from blind chance. You can't and never will be able to do this. So don't mock the faith of others when your proof is so weak.I do not dispute that a creator of some kind could exist - any more than I dipute the possiblity of alternative universes. I do dispute the ridiculous creationist twaddle and that any person would be required to bow down and worship this thing if it exists - and even more ridiculous is the idea that you or anyone else would know what 'it' might be thinking and what 'it' might want - and yet even more utterly moronic is the idea that the possible 'it' might want a bunch of half-educated peasants kneeling at its feet moaning and muttering and asking it to send their kids to disney while it allows 'other' kids to starve to death daily.
And you still have not offered one piece of EVIDENCEthat might support your delusional thinking.If I thought that you were actually seeking answers then I might take your questions more seriously. The whole of creation is proof that there is a designer. And if you were truly wanting to know if God exists, and specifically the God of the Bible, you should ask Him to make Himself known to you. Those who truly seek God with their hearts will find Him. But I suspect that you've closed yourself off to that.
Yet, there is ample evidence contained within this thread, some of it provided by you yourself that shows just how much Christians support the thread title.
What beliefs are you referring?
That's entirely not true. With science, I am able recreate any experiment (funding permitted) that scientists have found working theories for and can reproduce the same results. In other words, I can see for myself rather than just take someones word for it.
Yes, it is.
Wow. That's a lot of replies. Has anyone actually changed their thinking or learned anything from all of this?
I certainly have! The answer to the OP's question, for one thing.
What part ? Here is one for you.
Creationists are group of liar's attacking evolution without any empirical proof. Just by publishing hubs on hubpages attacking evolution with resources of Art graduate PHD holders commenting on biological evolution, or bible verses as credible source is another way from them to show you the approach they take to attack evolution.
I hope that is digestible for starters.There are creationists with PHDs in geophyics, geology, astronomy and biology. They have researched and provided empirical proof. I don't know that any of them are on hubpages but they do provide extensive resources on the web if you're willing to take the time to look.
There are creationsts Ph.D.'s. Empirical proof? Hardly.
Jonathan Wells, author of some anti-evolution books, went back to school to get a PhD with the sole purpose of discrediting evolution (which he calls Darwin). All he's done is discredit himself.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08 … lly-0.html
There's a geologist, Andrew Snelling, PhD that gets paid for consulting (where he quotes rock ages in millions of years) and then moonlights for creationists (where he writes stuff totally contradictory). Hmmm, more lies.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htmIt is not anti-biblical that age of Universe and the same time the earth is not billions years old.
why do so many doctors accept evolution?
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01 … .html#more
skyfire,
You assume sound logic, however your logic is flawed! Just you being here fighting for your view point proves what I am saying.
For true evolution, you would never waste your time on the weak counter statements that others bring up.
It always amazes me just how someone so highly educated would ever get rapped up in such an empty believe. Even I struggle with the idea of getting something from nothing. I just lack that much "BLIND" faith. At least with creation, there is something that is the starting point. Regardless of whether or not I can explain it.
If I were to think that everything started from nothing and that nothing was in control of it, wow, that is real faith! So to test or proof your believe, just hold out your hand and see how long it takes for something to appear without anyone or anything helping. Let me know when something of value appears like a diamond, a car or a new super computer.
If this test is not to your liking, then maybe you will like this one instead. Have you ever received the help from anyone including medical help?
If you where a true to evolution, you would have rather died instead of violating the most basic law of evolution, survival of the fittest!
Anything short of this would be a high crime against all of humanity!
This would even include getting help from someone in order to improve learning.
Now, as far as I am concerned, I could never buy into anything that extreme, I just do not have that much faith. While it maybe easy to buy into the basic concept, I truly believe that most people never take time to really think it through to see if there is even soundness to their way of thinking.
Now, with all of this moved over to the sidelines. I would like to ask you a question directly. You sound pretty smart, are you a ultra high stakes gambler?
If both of us do what is good for those around and the only difference is our believe in the source of all things. Even if I am wrong, nothing will ever happen to me for my being off target. However if you are found wrong in your believe and stand before that Creator whom you refuse to believe and accept. Then you will be judged by him with absolutely no defense to stand behind.
I would much rather be ridiculed for what I believe right now and take a chance of playing the fool then find myself the fool then. How about you?Here is a wager for you:
Hold out your hand and let me know when your creator appears.
It appears that you have no problem with a creator appearing from nothing. Why is that? What evolutionist do is just delete the unnecessary step.
What is the necessity of a God, if by his own existence proves that something can come from nothing, to argue that something can't come from nothing.But what if you are worshiping the wrong god? Have you even considered this? Of course you haven't, or you wouldn't have made the silly statement of there being no harm in believing in your god. Better rethink your illogical post, dude! LOL!
Franz that was well said. I am with you. I would rather be ridiculed here in this life by people who would prefer that I kept my mouth shut, than to miss the mark entirely and face my Creator with no hope.
God bless you
they say Darwin is responsible for eugenics, abortions etc
Yes, Baileybear. When you reduce man to something akin to animals, without a spirit, you can do whatever you want with them. Of course, then you begin to worship the animals.
Why else would it be so important for some to promote such a fallicy?
God bless youNot something akin to animals. Sorry, but we just happen to be the animals with the most intelligence on this planet. We are mammals, do you disagree with this statement?
And what proof do you have that animals have no spirit, or that humans do?Hey Randy, thanks. I stand corrected. I thought about the animal part before I wrote it but I felt that some people wouldn't have understood what I was meaning. I can see that you did.
Yes, we are higher than the animals, not just because we are more intelligent. We were made in the image of God. I know you will not believe that, and certainly won't agree with it.
God bless you
I'm a Christian, but I'm not convinced that animals don't have spirits - especially those beloved by humans. In fact, I'm almost 100% convinced that dogs and horses have spirits. Cats? Maybe not. lol
You know, habee, I am not certain of that one myself, I have to admit. I can't remember reading in the Bible whether they do or not. I have to believe that they do not simply because they were given to man by God as food, so that would lead me to believe that they do not.
I know we humans love our pets, and that they seem to love us. I have several dogs and agree with you that they sometimes seem to be almost human.
We have to remember that the spirit is what lives after we are dead. Maybe there is an animal heaven and maybe there is not. For me that is not important.
God bless youHumans are eaten by animals sometimes, perhaps more often in very ancient times. I suppose your god gave us to some of them for food too.
As if who eats who makes a difference in which species have souls.And yet, all domesticated dogs evolved from wolves and it was humans who engineered the evolution.
But dogs are not a different species from wolves. All are canines. And yes humans can do such engineering.
Dogs are a sub-species of the canine family, just as wolves are. Just as we are primates and so are chimps and gorillas.
Yes, Canines are a species that include fox and coyotes. They all evolved from a common ancestor.
Primates are also a species that include humans, apes, gorillas, etc., which also all evolved from a common ancestor.
And, sometime much earlier than that, Canines and Primates both evolved from the same common ancestor.
In other words, it can be done. Glad you agree.Sorry for the short answer before. Had to run.
If we are related to chimps and gorillas, why can we not replicate with them. Dogs and wolves are related and they can interbreed and replicate. Pretty simple and straight forward. The true scientific method of evaluating conceptual life.
Dogs and wolves have compatible blood makeup, but it is not even close with humans and apes.
Primate is the genus while homo sapien is the species for humans
For dogs, Canis is the genus while wolf is the species. Dogs are the subset of the species wolf because they were selectively bred for the desired traits.
God bless youThe very same reasons wolves do not replicate poodles. Was that supposed to be a serious question?
That is entirely not true. You are either fabricating stories or you simply don't know.
It has nothing to do with blood type, again you are fabricating stories and only supporting the thread title, again.
Very sad indeed when believers have to stoop to those levels to support their beliefs.Hey Beelzedad, I thought you were more intelligent than that. I didn't say that wolves could replicate poodles, but I did say that dogs and wolves could breed and reproduce young.
Maybe I should have used the term reproduce, but then you would have probably taken issue with that. What I was saying was that dogs and wolves have similarities in blood, making it possible for them to interbreed and produce offspring that is something other than either breed to begin with.
Man and ape cannot do that. Hitler tried but failed during all of his experiments to manipulate life. I know, it wasn't Hitler that performed the experiments, but he commissioned the deeds.
You know, it does not demonstrate any kind of intelligence when those who worship the theory of evolution stoop to accusing others of lies, when they present facts to support their beliefs.
The true test of a theory is whether or not something can be replicated. I gave you clear evidence that man did not evolve from the ape, or monkey or any other animal. We simply are not compatible according to the real scientific method.
While we are on the subject of replication, in terms of proof of scientific fact, why did the big bang only happen once?
Of course, I don't know if you believe that it was a big bang that started life as we know it or not. However, many evolutionists do.
So what is your answer to the question about that first episode that supposedly was the origin of life? Why is there not another blue ball out there that proves replication of the big bang theory. If it has happened once it should have happened trillions of times. So, where is your evidence for that?
Science has its own way of routing out lies, so why has it not dealt with this one? Is it that science has its own agenda, and disproving something that is beneficial to their cause would in fact disrupt that agenda? By the way, what is that agenda?
God bless youThat is incorrect. Again, blood has nothing to do with it.
More fabricated stories to support the thread title.
Try presenting some facts, then.
That is not evidence, that is your own personal contrived and uninformed assertion.
Yes, nice deflection to your fabrications.
Yes, once caught red-handed fabricating stories, the believer baits and switches and deflects the burden of proof onto others. Very sad, indeed.
And, to further the deception, more fabrications are brought into the argument.
You continue to support the threads title.Wow, Beelzedad, I am amazed. Up to this point I thought you were intelligent. The statement that blood has nothing to do with it shows the contrary.
Maybe you should go back to the books and study a bit more. You are embarrassingly ignorant of the facts.
Life begins when the ovum receives a compatible sperm. One of the first things that takes place then is that it finds the compatible nucleus which contains the blood molecules or hemocytes.
That allows for a viable ovum, and the zygote is formed. Without this compatibility, there is no zygote development, because one of the first things that is produced when the zygote turns to embryo is a continuing supply of blood being developed from both sides of the developing zygote.
It takes on its own blood characteristics developed from the two blood sources, (the ovum and the sperm) which gives us our system of blood typing.
By the way, when you wrestle in the mud with a pig its important to know that the pig is having fun, so if you are going to do it have fun and enjoy it.
It is awesome how so many people use opinion instead of fact to base their beliefs upon. The result of this is chaos, each and every time. Chaos is a tool of the ignorant. When chaos is present, people are easily confused and overlook the obvious truth, because it does fit into the ignorant agenda.
Seriously, Beelzedad, look it up. Don't take my word for it, do your own research for the facts.
God bless youwat a "blood molecule"?
wat a "hemocyte"?
Far as I know the former does not exist and the latter is present only in invertebrates.
Dear me.
Perhaps when you add links to your husband's published works - we will find out?
Hey Mark, good to see you are following my comments.
Sorry you missed my post that told you that my husband does not have published works about the falicy of evolution, nor does he have to have in order to understand molecular biology.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio … m/hemocyte
Everything is made of molecules, whether it is flesh and blood and bones, or the computer you are looking at.
You may wish to take the advice I gave to beelzedad. A little actual study may do you a world of good.
Better luck next time kind sir.
God bless you
and about an author of books of lies, Jonathon Wells
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/here's a scathing review about Jonathan wells
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08 … cally.html
- Onusonusposted 14 years ago0
The concept of evolution, which is an unproven theory, can at times be maliciously hurled at people who don't want to accept it in classroom settings or in the workplace, by people who wish to encroach on the beliefs of others. I for one don't think it is the theory it's self that should be attacked as much as the way that it is delivered by some pessimests.
If the theory is proven correct beyond a shadow of a doubt that man came from monkeys, then our religious beliefs become invalidated to a certain extent causing some people to discard them. But then it might be possible that a hundred years from now somone proves evolution to be wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. Then what? Oops we made a mistake, I guess you can go back to believing in God again.
The bottom line is bible study is not part of the cirriculum and niether should Darwinism be part of it.
If you lived in China you would be required to learn about Communism and what a great guy Mao was. The same thing could happen to the rest of the world if we let it.goes to show you know absolutely nothing about evolution if you think evolution is about man coming from monkeys.
Clearly you are ignorance about what evolution is, but you are saying it shouldn't be part of the curriculumThe government dose pay for evolution to be taught in schools, where Creation theory is not, unless it is a religious school.
Have you read my Creationist Hub?just had a look - very short & said nothing of substance. I have 2 hubs on evolution.
Creation shouldn't be paid for.There is a Creation Museum in Canada also, they want to run these Creation Museums in every major City in North America and have the Government pay for them.
I think that is something of substance in spreading of liesOmnusonus...
Firstly, there's no such thing as an unproven theory. Science never claims ever to have absolute facts. A theory is something waiting to be disproven. If you have the evidence to disprove evolution, then it's no more a theory. You wiill need to go to school to learn how to disprove a theory, though. The bible doesn't disprove things.
"If the theory is proven correct beyond a shadow of a doubt that man came from monkeys, then our religious beliefs become invalidated to a certain extent causing some people to discard them."
And that's the real issue, isn't it? People who believe that the bible is the literal word of god cannot afford to have one word discredited, because, if one word is discredited, then everything else can be discredited as well. And that's very scary for those who want to believe in superstition, which is what all religions are.
"The bottom line is bible study is not part of the cirriculum and niether should Darwinism be part of it."
That's rather like saying, "The bottom line is experimenting with cocaine isn't part of the curriculum and so computer science shouldn't be either." In other words, there is no correlation between bible study and Darwinism.Castlepaloma,
They may be paying to spread lies by teaching evolution, ever think about that?
Evolution requires far more faith to believe than Creation does. There used to be a web site owned by a science teacher gone preacher, IDK if it's still up and running but it is presented from a Creation perspective, you should be able to get passed that, some evidence is presented that might give you some insight and perhaps clarity on your dilemma. It has been my experience that the lies are coming from the other direction. I have heard some fantastical stories fly across a pulpit now and again (mostly southern pulpits) but nothing harmful and certainly not lies, embellishments to make a point. I'm not saying I agree, in fact I'm sympathizing with you. You seem to have been hurt in some way, maybe by a religion that has let you down? When you research a topic it should be done from all perspectives, the truth lies somewhere in both sides of a story. Unless you are not searching for truth but rather to prove your point? drdino.com
Try to keep up at the back son !!!
Darwin's work is no longer theory, for the most part it is now well established and proven backed up by the more recent scientific research into DNA and Genetics.
Picking up on Baileybear's original Point why do Creationists tell such outrages lies.... You sail right in there with the Monkey Story again.... (and not for the first time ) Darwin NEVER SAID IT OR EVEN THEORISED ABOUT IT OK ? What he said was that somewhere in the early development of our species we must have had a common ancestor. Guess what, DNA and Genetics proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he was correct.
Even the Pope and the Vatican accept it as fact !!!!
Darwin should be taught in school because it is science, and as science it is there to be challenged and tested by those who come after him.... that's how the system of further development and enlightment works.
Being in constant denial is not a reasonable argument, Creationalism is a nice story but that's all it is and ever was to believe it still has merit shows a fairly limited understanding of any science that I am aware of, but there again when I want to learn something new I research it and look at both sides not just one .....
Can you honestly say the same ?other blantant lies by hubbers here include made-up quotes (ie LIES! )such as 'Darwin didn't believe in his theory' and Darwin said, 'I hope I did a good job of destroying God.'
look what J.Wells said: "[Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism."
Wow. It is almost painful to believe that somebody would actually say something that stupid.
"What he said was that somewhere in the early development of our species we must have had a common ancestor. Guess what, DNA and Genetics proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he was correct."
You could have read the BIBLE and found out that we have a common ancestor. Way to go Darwin and genetics, you've proven what the BIBLE has stated for thousands of years.All you are doing is proving her point.
I'm only observing what your fellow evolutionist had to say, but always glad to be a contributor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo"Idiocracy" introduction - the future of human evolution
funny and sadI honestly think we are heading that way, helped as always by religious dogma.
LOL, at least someone liked it, or unfortunately. Yes, funny and sad. I thought the movie was pretty good.
I think it was good, just my emotions running.
I’ll just go away and lie down within a darkened room until I calculate if you are trying to be sarcastic or simply Obtuse !
I am doing neither. Simply making an observation about what you stated. The BIBLE also states that we originated from a common ancestor, Adam and Eve, and it said so a long time before genetics and Darwin. The BIBLE also outlines all of the ancestor generations after that. So how is what I am saying a lie? It's fine if you think the BIBLE is a lie, but I am just pointing out what the BIBLE says vs what you said in the previous post.
So - the bible says Adam was a monkey then?
Are monkeys incest too?, I know they don't do their young.
Mark, you know some people are using sarcasm as a proofs there is no God. This is what they only have, my friend.
Wow.
I guess we just wasted a lot of time and effort, didn't we? The Truth was right there all along and we just didn't see it!
We should all read our Bibles and see what else we can learn. I bet all the wisdom of the Universe is right there!
Stupid scientists wasting time with experiments and silly theories - where will that get us? Everything we ever needed to know is right there in a book written by The Big Booper himself.
Thanks for your wisdom. Eyes need opening and I think Big Booper has chosen you for that work!Exactly! Except for all of the name calling. There is no need to put down science and other peoples opinions with name calling. It doesn't really help your case for evolution if what you are portraying is an example of the final product.
OK Once more from the top !
According to Creationists; How old is the Bible ? And by clever calculation How old is A) The planet and B) mankind ? About 6,000 years old give or take the age of a prophet or two.... Isn't that the answer ?
To make any sense of Evotion Darwin Hypothesised that for the different variations of life he witnessed firsthand on his World travels the planet had to be millions of years old. Since then both the sciences of Geology and Archaeology have proved this hypothesis correct.
Remember too that Darwin established his theories while visiting different parts of the world and viewing subtle differences in what appeared to be common species. This he expanded upon when he looked at mankind as well.
He was not, I might add, chasing a few moth eaten sheep and goats around a Middle Eastern dessert asking where did I come from !
The science of genetics proves you need a minimum size of gene pool to maintain and expand any species, this alone kinda makes a complete Horlicks of the Adam and Eve Story.
Adam + Eve = Cain and Abel....
Cain - Abel = Cain who wanders off and gets married to X
Where the hell did X come from ?
See, even the science of simple mathmatics doesn't work in your favour !
Personally I could give a tiny Rats Butt what you belive all I ask is you stop trying to justify a highly susceptible set of unsubstantiated myths and rumours and passing them off as fact just because the Bible says so.Basically, all I got out of that post was that Darwin and the BIBLE disagree on how old the earth is. Then evolution discovered everything that was already written in the BIBLE.
Fortunately for me simple mathematics does work in my favor
well science would discovering many things which are written not only in bible but quran , torah , veda and many other books which are considered to be holy...humans exist since 0.2 million years ago and it is not that scientist came just 500 years ago...various civilizations did acquire,research,found ,discovered many things and those things would be found in various books including scriptures...at same time many things in those scriptures have been concepts and assumption which science have proven wrong...i admire those who wrote bible , quran , torah ,veda because those was work by people with good intent ...i would love people to read those books ..only thing which puts be off is only truth concept when lot of things from them have been proven wrong ...for e.g. age of earth , earth is flat , adam/eve etc etc...
"Adam + Eve = Cain and Abel....
Cain - Abel = Cain who wanders off and gets married to X
Where the hell did X come from ? "
I remember wondering the same thing when I first read the bible when I was 8. But then my whole family was swept away by pentecostal christianity, and logical thinking was supressed.Well just a thought. if you read some of the "other" books that were deemed to be non canon. it actually states that when Cain was born it was twins.. a boy and a girl...same with Abel...and supposedly Cain married his younger sister...and actually part of the fight that led up to Cain killing Abel was over which sister each brother would get to married...
For those interested in reading...
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/index.htmhttp://library.thinkquest.org/29178/Cain.htm
according to this, Cain had sex with his sister & it was not considered incest because the incest laws weren't made yet & DNA was still near-perfect.
HilariousI don't expect people who can't even fathom Genesis 1: 1 to even be able to understand anything that happened after that.
no, it gets more ridiculous as goes along - Noah's Ark for example
http://hubpages.com/hub/Noahs-Flood-An-Analysis
ediggity - with respect, I think the reference to 'common ancestor' was the common ancestor of apes and humans, not all humans.
ediggity. They refuse to look at the Bible for all the knowledge it holds. The thing is, the Bible does hold all the truth of the Universe, and if science would use it as a guide they would prove its validity.
Instead, many scientists are egotists and would never wish to find truth that is already there. They want to create truth of their own. That is the same mindset that is promoted by some of those who worship evolution.
God bless youPlease post links to your claims about what scientists want and think. You make bald statements without anything to back them up. Read the title to this thread again!
What exactly from the bible can scientists use? Please explain.
That is clearly just a personal opinion of your own feelings as there is the peer review system that would instantly weed out anyegotistical driven conclusions.
That is only a statement from desperation and a denial in attempting to understand science.
@Ediggity.
"You could have read the BIBLE and found out that we have a common ancestor. Way to go Darwin and genetics, you've proven what the BIBLE has stated for thousands of years."
You're joking, of course.
Precisely, which verse is that?It's more than just one verse:
http://knol.google.com/k/genealogy-of-a … the-bible#
You say that with the gusto of a religious fanatic. I'm sorry that my denial of your beliefs has offended you, but I believe something a little different. But try not to feel lkie you are being singled out. I wouldn't want any other religious or antireligious views taught in the schools either.
I am impressed, onusonsomeoneelse. The ill-will you manage to create is above and beyond. Well done. When you die - I will induct you into the Satanist A** K**** h***** Cult - I am sure you did not mind retro actively joining - did you? If you did, you would have left us a message up the time line. WelKum.
The only thing that I am fanatical about is the truth... and I don't feel that I am being singled out certainly not by anything you may have said and I apologise if that's how my message came across.
However I do take exception to your insinuation that the teaching of Darwin's contributions to our understanding of evolution and th origins of species is somehow anti-religious.
It is that sort of distortion of truth that makes people like me rally to the cause.
Believe what you want, that is your choice but do not try to prevent others from learning and studying.
If they chose to study Religion as well then that too should be their choice freely arrived at.I agree whole heartedly. People should be able to study or believe whatever they want. All I'm saying is they need to keep it out of the schools unless it is a proven fact.
Take for example the aids epidemic. People were told by scientists that you could only get it by doing certain things, later the theory was proven wrong, and people contracted it that otherwise might not have if they were given proper information about the subject. Sometimes they just have to admit that they don't have all the answers, it's still not proven, it's just a theory.Yes, but it is mind-boggling as to why people would not want to believe in reality.
Onus - with respect, we'd probably have to eliminate all history and much of science because it changes over time.
(All I'm saying is they need to keep it out of the schools unless it is a proven fact.)
It's going to be hard to stop teaching the unproven theory of gravity, isn't it?There are times when we have to make decisions based upon what we know now, we never stop looking and yes we are going to get it wrong from time to time but this is not a reason to do nothing.
But please.... stop saying Evolution is still unproven and therefore should be banned from schools. Science has moved on from Darwin, you may not like what we have found but that doesn’t make it wrong or in any way anti-religious.
When I was at school I got suspended for destroying school property, IE one copy of an Atlas. I took a flat image of the world and cut out the major land masses to separate them from the seas and oceans.
I could see a jig-saw puzzle that looked to me that all the land joined together as one land mass.
I was branded as some sort of retarded idiot... That was by a Geography professor nearly ten years before the Geological discovery of Plate tectonics.... He could not imagine a force strong enough to move continents....
By teaching all children what we know allows them to take the next step forward, they should challenge everything we say and only accept it if it can be proven.Dude you got that story from Al Gore. I watched that movie.
Don't wish to be rude, but the story is actually true, and I'm not sure I like the comparison with your home grown idiots, has Al Gore ever had an original thought in his life ?
I'm sure it did, I was just trying to keep it light.
Incidentaly theres another example of a scientific theory being tragically wrong. all the other well deserving people who could have gotten the Nobel prize were passed up because he made a video.The greatest threat to mankind is Nuclear war and the natural environment
I'm happier to see Al Core get a Nobel peace prize, than to watch Obama get one for raising the war budget to the highest level ever.
@Onusonus...
" I agree whole heartedly. People should be able to study or believe whatever they want. All I'm saying is they need to keep it out of the schools unless it is a proven fact. "
So, you're advocating that we eliminate science from the school curriculum, do you?
You see, Onusonus, science doesn't deal with facts. It deals with theories. Theories are not facts. Theories can be defined as the best possible explanation for something with the available evidence. A lot of those theories are so well proven that it's probable that they will never be disproved. Still, science is not arrogant enough to say that it is absolutely right. Scientists leave that to all the religious peoples of the world who all believe that they are absolutely right...
Anyway, I suppose that is why we're in a downward spiral of civilization again. Historical cycles. Dark ages come and go...Perhaps historically religionists have made the claim of absolute inerrancy, but I don't remember anyone making the claim to posessing all knowledge, which is only something that God could possibly possess.
but that's really more of a human condition to dominate through fear and intolerance. You don't have to be part of a Marxist regime to realize that what ever meathod of thought you choose to follow there are going to be some bad eggs.
Now heres a theory for you. I believe that the sun was created by a great big guy who said let there be light. Factually speaking, every culture in history has had a similar theory, and one acn't help but conclude that our existence is a miracle. From the Earths molten core, to our convenient position in the solar system, the position of our moon, etc.. our lives are undeniably against all odds.
What you are pointing out is how scientists continued to study a subject and improved their knowledge on a subject.
By your own example, Religious people are losing thousands of hours of their lives, their cash, and more. All this because they are being misinformed.
The diffence is that science explored it's findings and managed to correct them. religion steadfastly refuses to accept evidence contrary to their belief system.
Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution is the theory created to explain how evolution works, which is proven by looking at evolution through history, and can even be seen in action through scientific experimentation with enforced environmental variables on short lifespan animals. People get confused about the word theory, however every proven scientific theory is still a theory, open to discussion, amendment and improvement. They are theories about how the world works, and after years of scientific exploration, most of them are incredibly accurate.
No need to be sorry for denying reality, facts and hard evidence. That's part and parcel to religious indoctrination.
The one erroneous continuum in this debate is how Christians/theists describe evolutionary theory as belief-reliant, as if it is the same as their beliefs.
Religion only holds value with its belief. Scientific theory has value regardless of belief.How then is the theory of evolution practally applied?
I know you won't do your own research, won't take my word for it, so I did the research for you. Here is just a small, small example:
2.Evolutionary theory has been put to practical use in several areas (Futuyma 1995; Bull and Wichman 2001). For example:
•Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
•Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
•Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
•Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
•Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).
•Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction (Sutherland 2002).
Now, what practical application can you show for Creationism/ID?And I suppose you can prove eternal life? Or is that only your theory on what happens when we die?
They have a whole book on it and all God wants in return is to worship him for the rest of your life.
Most likely for most, we can't live up to this kind of eternal life anyways/No I can not prove it. That's why, unlike evolutionists, I don't want to have it shoved down our children's throats in the classrooms.
The sad thing about this discussion is that you don't understand the words you are using. Proof is subjective.
Science is objective. Education does not force beliefs. But when myth meets objectivity, the thinking person realizes myth for what it is - and that is really what scares parents - that their children won't buy into their B.S. any longer - and they will lose their control over their kids' minds.Not so. My kids will be afforded the opportunity to grow and develop in their thoughts and theories knowing that whatever path they choose to follow, their parents will have been grounded and settled in the faith, with an undeniable testimony of God and his plan for eternal happiness. And they will know that the truest form of happiness comes from our standard of living as an example to them.
It is quite undeniable the good effects which true religion has on the world. Nothing better teaches, faith, hope, charity, fidelity, and virtue.Onusonus Wrote:
“Now heres a theory for you. I believe that the sun was created by a great big guy who said let there be light.”
Question : According to the Bible how far along the creation trail were we when he said this...? Excuse my ignorance but didn’t heaven and earth come first ?
No mention of the previous enormous stellar explosion in the region that created the gas and debris field from which the Sun was formed. Gravity doesn’t seem to get a mention either. Yet ass it grew in density the gravitational forces around the Sun started to attract much of the remaining debris into lose conglomerates of rocks that whizzed round for millions of years smacking into one another breaking apart and reforming until it slowly cooled and settled down into the Solar system.
What point am I trying so desperately to make to you here ? Oh yes ! The Sun came first.
I sincerely hope that as part of the good grounding you are giving your children includes leaving their education to the schools and college teachers... for their sake if not your own.Actually it says that he created the heavens before he created the Earth. So it's all really a matter of interpertation. so it can square off with either theory weather you conclude that the sun was made first or not, chronology of creation isn't as important as the message of salvation. Still either way you look at it, the Genesis account is absolutely correct in the physical sense of declairing the creation of the stars and the universe, the Earth, day and night, animals, land and sea, etc.. In fact it is because they did not have a knowledge of these things that they were left with a certain level of vagueness. Unlike say, Noris mythology which declairs that the earth was made from the dead carcass of a frost giant named Ymir, his brains were the clouds, his bood was the rivers and the seas. comparatively speaking it is theologically significant that people weren't making up stories, but rather atributing their existence to God.
In other words, they will grow up with a religious indoctrination, most likely appalled with the word 'evolution' and like most believers, never even understanding with what it is they are appalled.
Precisely! They enjoy the fruits of scientific knowledge while at the same time denying it knows anything about our past.
They convince themselves the church clergy knows better how to examine and glean knowledge from research evidence than the most noted scientific scholars in the world.
I cannot possibly imagine being so deeply mired in such a depth of denial. But on the other hand, they do fall for the schemes of known con men, so that explains it to a degree.
I suggest the believers who do not believe in evolution discard all products using scientific knowledge and truly live like Jesus. Then I will believe you are sincere! Any takers?
no wonder my mother was upset that I studied for a science degree instead of going to bible college
Where do you live?
Students study Science in Bible colleges here as well as secular schools.- That is the funniest thing you have said. Bible science - love it!
Omnipotent -All powerful-God
Omniscience-All Knowing-God
Ha Science,just another feather in Gods cap.
What makes me laugh is how some are merely contented to worship,the works of the Creator and not the creator himself What makes me laugh is self righteous statements such as that.
Eaglekiwi, You have made a good point.
Science is becoming more and more interesting. Scientists are discoverings things which is already written in the bible.Yes - we are actually evolved from apes - isn't it wonderful!
Now we know where we actually came from. Yay Science!
Unless, of course, you think your loving atheist family have taught you those things just as well as a religious one would have.
Great to see two people from different Christian cults agree on how children should be taught. Ever baptized any dead people, WOC? Do you teach your kids they need to wear special underwear to be moral? Do you teach them there were great Jewish civilizations in America long before Columbus?
Teaching children false history and science does them nothing but harm.No - the post you refer to is not great - it's insulting. You do not have to raise a family within a religious household in order to create good members of society.
My children have no less the qualifying values that onus speaks of.
It takes a good parent to raise a good person. Religion is not the common denominator.
For the sake of your children's education, you should learn that saying "God did it," is not a theory. It is preaching. Genesis is not theory - it is junk. There must be a sun before there can be day and night, as the turning of the earth puts one half of the world facing the sun while the other half is in darkness - day and night.
Therefore, the following of....
Genesis 1: 3-5
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
and this....
Genesis 1: 16-19
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
...are junk - simply examples of ignorant legend. There could be no days 1,2, and 3 without the sun, which wasn't made until day 4.
Days 1,2,3 are like knee-high fastballs over the outside corner - which means you and your Genesis theory just struck out.Wow, you've got it all figured out, just like E=mc^2. Lol, the scripture you quoted is referring to 3 distinctly different lights. Light in general, which god created and sustained without any sun or moon or stars while the earth sill had no form or void. Then two great lights were made after the earth was formed. You're trying to place limitations on the infinite. There doesn't need to be a sun for GOD to create light.
Actually if you read St. John Chapter one you might get a better understanding of the first light that was "Created" on the "First" day....
And if I read Marvel comics, I would think that aliens from the planet Krypton look just like us but they can fly. And your point is you believe in fantasy?
Actually no i don't believe this.. i just happen to know the bible is all...it helps to defend your point of view if you know about the "proof" that is used to argue thier "facts"
Also of Note.. you might notice that the Sun creates light...the moon just reflects the light from the sun...so if god created 2 lights...then it would have to be referring to the Sun and the Stars...not the moon because the moon doesn't emit light on its own
100% correct. I should have premised with this {1:16}
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars
also. My intent was not to infer that the other great light was the moon.Your logic and reading comprehension skills have left me no choice but to reconsider my own views on the proposition that man is not directly descended from apes.
Actually my logic tells me that humans from apes and evolved over a over million year time frame is alot more feasible than to be "created" from a handful of dirt and some water in just one day. You might actually want to read as to what i was commenting on before you point out something about me that you don't know. I am not by any means a christian, nor do i claim to be.
Two GREAT lights!
The Sun for Day and the Moon for Night, fairly simple to understand exactly what the writers of Genesis meant. There is no other great light in our sky.
How do you suppose primative nomads would know it was the Sun's reflected light ? It's that 21st century reinterpretation appearing again !
Hot damn. Super-scientist ediggity is now going to explain to us all exactly how the earth can undergo days and nights without a sun. This ought to be good. LoL.
LOL, it wouldn't matter anyway, because according to you the light wave particle duality makes light half an object and half space. LOL.
He need not have to explain anything other than to say god is a super being that can do anything, and believers can make up anything they want and thy will be done.
Close, but you also forgot, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."
"There doesn't need to be a sun for GOD to create light."
Is this some sort of Creationist Hindsight ? Why not go the whole and re write Genesis for them and tell it like it is with all the knowledge of the 21st century.
Back then everyone, who thought about it, thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. Doesn't make it true.
The reason it's called the Solar System is because the Sun came first, therefore it was already light before our planet was even formed from the floating star debris orbiting the sun.If you refer to what DoubleScorpion said about St John Ch.1 it would probably make more sense to you. God's light is different than any other.
And so we bounce once again from the Origin of Creation A'la Genesis in the Old Testament to John's version in the New Testament in an attempt to prove the author of Genesis wasn’t referring to the Sun and the Moon as the great lights !
Please insult your own intelligence with this tosh if you must but please if you’re this desperate to prove some obscure theological point I will concede and move on while I still have my sanity.
God was the light of the world before He created the light for day and night. The Bible tells this and you can check it out.
God spoke and the Universe sprang into existence. This is in the Bible and was written long before the big bang theory.
God created things on Earth according to His plan and didn't need the Sun to do so. He created the Sun and the Moon for signs and seasons and for the complex ecosystem He designed to thrive.Don't worry - Father Christmas will be along soon - if you stay up really late you may see him flying through the air pulled by reindeer and loaded up with coca cola.
who tells you evolution is evil? Your religious leader? Why? Because they fear if you knew the truth you would leave the flock?
Clearly, from your posts, you have decided evolution is evil, but you don't have the foggiest what evolution is about.I never said it was evil. I'm saying it is unproven and wrong, and therefore should not be taught as a fact to our children in School.
Actually I know exactly what evolution is. just because I'm not buying into it does not mean i don't understand it.
I do find it somwhat ironic that some atheists on this thread feel the need to attack bible verses in order to defend their mode of thought. I bet you thought the Atheists were going to take the moral high ground on this issue, lol!Some questions do come from the atheists but most of the hard questions are coming from the somewhat middle grounds people.
If you think evolution is an attack, then that comes more from your understanding as a hardcore ChristianActually I think that some people use it as an attack. It's not like the theory of evolution is saying everyone who doesn't believe this is an idiot. It's just a theory that contradicts my beliefs. It doesn't have to be about eago. I'm certainly not going to belittle others for having faith in something that I don't.
Just because something contradicts what you chose to believe doesn't make it wrong.
You say you understand what evolution is, however it is clear from your remarks that you do not. Your repeated statements that it remains a theory and should not be taught in schools prove this beyond doubt.
The fact that you will use these self deluding arguments against your own children is what I find most disturbing.What I find most disturbing is your desire to shove your evolution religion down my children's throats.
Since when has Evolution become a religion and who made such a rediculous claim ?
However if you believe Evolution to be a religion I can see why you might feel threatened by it. Provable Truth over unsubstantiate myth.Maybe the schools should not push any other mathematical or scientific theory down your children's throats either. Evolution IS a proven theory, but a theory remains a theory.
I do see one group attacking another group in the name of God.
I don't see groups attacking each other over the name of evolution.
See the verbal and physical difference?I've most definately seen people from both sides being verbaly abusive towards one another. It's not right for either to do so and both are shamefully and equally guilty of it. I suppose it's all in one's perspective, weather or not you choose to see it or ignore it is your problem.
In that case, since Germ Theory is also just a theory, it should not be taught in schools either...and children should not be taught that it is a fact that disease is passed through the transferring of microbes.
Then let's see how many religious parents will conclude that it is ok for their children to expose themselves to any sickness, including TB, Influenza, Measles, STD'S, and Chickenpox...because Germ Theory is...just a theory.I often read believers making these claims. They are the same believers who never put forth arguments as to why evolution is unproven or wrong within the context and framework of the theory itself, usually because they've never taken the time to understand evolution in order to make their attempt to falsify it.
And, of course, because evolution is a theory, anyone is welcome to falsify it. No one has.
The onus is on you to do so if you are making the claim that it is wrong.indeed, how isnanely stupid it is that they are attacking the religious theory of the creation of life, the counterpoint in the argument of religion vs evolution.
I wouldn't say evolution was shoved down children's throats anymore than any other subject. Evolution doesn't have much day to day application, but neither does trigonometry for most people. It has just as much application to understanding the subject though.
How is the theory that the world is goverened by some higher power practically applied?
Onusonus Wrote : “How then is the theory of evolution practically applied ?
Wow ! Did he really ask that ? The first sensible question he has ever asked and I missed it !
Where should I start, I assume he must eat food, having read all about the beasts of the field, little fishes and a few loaves of bread....
Let me see, practical applications of Evolution that Onusonus might understand. How about man’s manipulation through selective breeding to change character traits in animals ? Or then there’s the alteration of their size and muscle distribution to produce a better meat source.
Every dog he passes is a direct descendant of the Wolf, all the odd shapes and sizes he sees is man’s artificial application of evolutionary traits.
Perhaps if he was to open his mind as well as his eyes proof of Evolution is all around him, be it the artificial manipulation by man or the subtle changes by natural selection, Bigger, Stronger, Faster wins prizes in sports do you not think the application of Darwinian ideas plays a part in how athletic trainers train their team ? Has he not considered or asked why medical Doctors and Scientists play an increasing role in the selection of Sports people or their training ? Probably not just as long as they keep winning !
Whether he likes it or not, believes it or not, Evolution is a FACT of life and is in daily use by man .... I’m sorry if that upsets him but it changes nothing.
Wow, Merlin, you cannot be serious. Darwin himself discredited his theory.
As far as evolution is concerned, yes, it does take place, but was not the vehicle that created anything. Mutations do take place, but they do not change species.
Inter breeding of species occurs and changes the species somewhat, but does not create another species altogether. Nature has its own way of controlling the changes that take place in any particular species.
Evidence of that can be seen in the hybridization of animals. They usually cannot reproduce. The same can be seen in hybrid plants.
Intelligent design is responsible for life as we know it. Change, whether manipulated or naturally achieved has never created a species. Wolfs and dogs are the same canine species.
Amoebas did not become any kind of animal or bird or fish. It just did not happen, and there is no scientific evidence to show that it did.
Let's be sure to understand what evolution really is. It did not create life at all, however, it does take place according to the changes in environment. Again no new species are created through evolution.
These thoughts do not go against belief in God. They simply are what they are. God created the earth and everything in it. Man gets a little confused when he tries to figure the whole thing out.
God bless youyou say Darwin discredited his theory - my, you have been fed a pack of lies.
Well, possibly. I wasn't there when he spoke the words. Do you have evidence to present that proves that he did not?
I just know that he did begin a movement upon false assumptions. He must have been a very intelligent individual, otherwise he could not have been able to develop a theory that so many have taken as truth.
Like I said before, evolution does take place under some circumstances. However, it is not responsible for creating life in any form.
God bless youyes, I read several biographies on Darwin, and his autobiography before I wrote a hub about him. Nothing I read supports your claim (lie)
Still doesn't mean he didn't say it. People usually don't write autobiographies on their death bed.
God bless youliars for jesus will say anything I guess. However, the existence of Darwin is not in dispute, this can be proved beyond reasonable doubt by corroborating evidence - more than can be said for the fictional jesus character and all the others from the babble novel
well his wife remained a christian & didn't like his theory, so I doubt she would deny it if he did recant
Merlin Fraser, Evolution has not been proven. Not by a long shot. Perhaps you should read about Darwin's life to start, then study the Geological Column which the entire theory is based on. Please don't post too much more until you know what you are talking about. It's embarrassing.
They think the same about you - except they can watch you imposing your ism's of religion, trade advantages, pornography, etc etc on the rest of the world. Funny how you see a dead guy who freed a whole nation from the oppression of greedy corrupt government as somehow dangerous - yet you seem to support the clearly greedy and corrupt invasions of Iraq by Cheney and his puppet Bush.
What part of evolution has not been proven?
(The bottom line is bible study is not part of the cirriculum and niether should Darwinism be part of it.)
The Enlightenment occured in the 18th century. Ignorance gave way to reason. Your side lost. Get over it.I'm sorry but this is wrong. In some schools you can choose to take R.E classes, most people know the story of creationism anyway and if you want your kids to learn that, send them to a catholic/christian/whatever school! if you send your kids to a public school then it is your own dumb fault that they learn evolution! They have religious schools for a reason. So creationism is part of the school curriculum and so is evolution. So as I said, you are wrong.
No, the BIBLE says we come from Adam and Eve, who were a man and a woman.
According to your evolution amigo Merlin in regards to monkeys:
"You sail right in there with the Monkey Story again.... (and not for the first time ) Darwin NEVER SAID IT OR EVEN THEORISED ABOUT IT OK ? What he said was that somewhere in the early development of our species we must have had a common ancestor."
Do you and Merlin disagree about this part of evolution Mark? Do you think we come from monkeys then? Is that what you are implying?evolution is not community phenomena...it is not religion that we have your or mine thing..it is universal and applies to all species irrespective of whether that species knows it or not...so why do you mention "your evolution"...division is job of religion not natural phenomena...
You accidentally forgot the word amigo. In English we often use the word your to imply association. In my statement I used "your evolution amigo", meaning your friend. Amigo is Spanish for friend. Sorry to confuse you. I was not implying that Mark or Merlin claim ownership to evolution or some type of "community" Hope that clears it up for you.
your are right i forgot the word amigo....sorry for that...
God and Darwin having lunch conversation.
Darwin....."I can't believe they are still arguing about evolution."
God...."It keeps them occupied...you know...it gives each side less time to create more ways to abuse and kill each other."
God takes a sip of beer and continues,"And...it's hilarious entertainment to watch them puff up and slam the keys on their computers!"
Darwin...laughing....."Genius!"Evolution of a Stick Figure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo1d6ttb … r_embeddedYou mean girl who lied about intercourse and claimed her status to be a virgin mother of jesus and then his disciples writing poetry is any wild wet way comparable to science (evolution). Phew, welcome to pseudoscience world.
I don't know the story you refer to, but I am not comparing anything. I've only stated facts about what is written in the BIBLE. Rather than turn this into a bunch of posts with scripture, you can go look them up in the BIBLE if you don't believe me.
Bible doesn't refer to any scientific facts. It's how you interpret it to keep your faith.
There was time when people used to refer flat-earth reference from bible. Now they refer evolution ? funny. Many Christians here are in favor of creationism and some bend bible towards evolution ? LOL. You call that bible stating evolution thousand years ago with weird poetry and no data ? Yeah sure.Funny, but I never wrote that the BIBLE refers to "scientific facts" Tell me about those times when, "people used to refer flat-earth reference from bible." Was it hard for you to live back then without all of this fancy science?
"You call that bible stating evolution thousand years ago with weird poetry and no data ?"
I wrote nothing of the sort, and if English is your second language I think that might be where the comprehension barrier lies. If not, I am sorry I don't know how to write it any more clear or concise. This is what I stated after Merlin's comment:
Merlin:
"What he said was that somewhere in the early development of our species we must have had a common ancestor. Guess what, DNA and Genetics proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he was correct."
Me:
You could have read the BIBLE and found out that we have a common ancestor. Way to go Darwin and genetics, you've proven what the BIBLE has stated for thousands of years.So, even though books have not been around for very long, bibles have been around for "thousands of years"
And, further to those fabrications or gross exaggerations, evolution supports the Adam/Eve myth.
Wow! What believers will say. At least, if nothing else, your response certainly does support something; the title of the thread.Yes the 66 books, which make up the BIBLE, transcribed from documents have been around for thousands of years. Way to stand up for evolution. When in disagreement attack and attempt to make fun of what you don't believe.
http://carm.org/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it
As usual, you add no valuable insight to the discussion.Ah, so you do accept was written in those documents? You accept the Old Testament and everything it says in there? Is that correct?
Is there some reason why you feel the need to fabricate lies? Oh yes, of course, it supports the OP.
Now, there's a reliable source. LOL! Funny how Christian apologetic's on one hand dismiss the OT when it suits their purposes and then flaunt it as the word of god when it suits their purposes.
LOL!The problem with your post is you're confusing science with faith. Two subjects in which you have limited if any experience at all. Good luck with both.
Yes, I do "accept was written."
I did not fabricate a lie.
I digressYes, I understand well enough by your posts that you have to attack me personally in order to support your own beliefs.
Fabricating or perpetuating, there's little difference here.
@Ediggity, the problem with all your references is that they are all written by people who believe the same thing that you do. They're the one's that are teaching you this stuff.
Has it ever occurred to you that they might be wrong?
Let me ask you a question. If there is no such thing as a personal God, are you going to resort to evil?
I haven't. Most atheists I know haven't. Would you resort to evil if there was no God?
Have you committed so many sins, and feel so bad about yourself that you have to have someone forgive you?
Or are you so scared of dying that you have to believe that there's a life after death?These people aren't the ones "teaching" me. GOD teaches through his word in the BIBLE. I grew up in an Atheist home, so yes, it used to occur to me that they were wrong all of the time. Fortunately, I don't need to worry about your second question, because there is a GOD. The atheists I am related to don't resort to evil either, so good for you. I have committed so many sins, and continue to sin every day, but I try not to sin and ask for forgiveness.
(GOD teaches through his word in the BIBLE. )
If you honestly research the history of the bible you will find that there is still much debate and much argumentation over authenticity and authorship. I would think you would rather learn real history of how this book came to be than rely on prejudiced viewpoints like the website you quoted. I would suggest scholarly websites rather than religious ones.Funny, my atheist mothers pass away this last week. My Pastor Brother was still tiring to give her salvation. Too bad and too late, an all loving Mother and Satan will dance to the end of time.
Doesn’t an all loving God wonder if his extremely happy people in heaven, approve
Can you prove that evolution is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt? I didn't think sooooo.
No. It cannot be proven. What's your point?
Here is lesson #1: The fact that evolutionary theory cannot be proven to your satisfaction in no way validates the idea of creationism. Just like the fact that we can't locate Jimmy Hoffa's body does not mean that aliens took him.can you prove the bible is correct/true....no.
If you want to look at proof of evolution just look at how agriculture has changed the behaviour of animals via artificial selection.
Sports Illustrated was recently condemed by may many religious readers because they showed something as simple as the evolutionary chain of dogs. Domestication of animals is a great way of looking at how evolution works within a species, and how certain kinds of a particular species are sued in climates is probably the most obvious indicator of how natural selection can work (Hairy cows used in colder climates, hairless cows used in warmer climates, etc.)
The fossil record provides an incresibly useful roadmap as to evolution through natural methods.
Just a little aside about whether Evolution does or does not actually happen an extremely interesting and fairly recent discovery was made in of all places the US of A where in some circles the teaching of Darwin are consider blasphemy.
Following the major volcanic eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State in 1980 an immense area of the countryside was laid waste by the lava flow and fall out of ash and pumice, trees were flattened and all live forms were wiped out including life in the rivers and lakes within the area.
On this occasion mankind was given a front row seat into the wonderful powers of our planet both apparently destructive but just as important to heal and recover.
With their usual flair for the over dramatic the media led the Doom Sayers in their predictions that an area of outstanding natural beauty had been lost forever and that it would take centuries to recover, assuming it ever did.
Following the 1980 eruption, the area was left to its own devices, ignored by all but a hardy few researchers and nutty naturalists and one or two interested scientists. Many who visited the area compared it with the landscape of the Moon, desolate, sterile and void of life.
So when a few prairie wild flowers were spotted growing quite happily curiosity was aroused as to where the soil came from and hey presto up popped a few Gophers this led to various scientific and natural studies being introduced to observe how such a recovery was even possible.
One of the study groups has discovered that not only have many of the original species of amphibians returned to the area but have adapted their life styles to suit the difference in natural habit from then to now. Creatures like the northwest Salamander that breeds in the water where their young develop before leaving the water to seek shelter in the damp forest areas around the lakes. Problem is because of the eruption their normal damp forest habitat no longer exists so they have adapted to stay in the water for a greater portion of lives.
This is Evolution at work, adapt or die! Adaption by natural selection, who knows what may occur next, when the forest reestablishes itself, and it will, some Salamanders may elect to return to the land to hunt and feed while others, the new sub species will stay in the water thus ensuring the survival of the species. GO DARWIN !Theology is not science
Science is not Theology
Neither of them are a part of the other, so why mix them in school.In the two years that I have been coming to Hubpages BOTH sides do the same thing ,and on a regular basis.
Tis a bit like The Young And The Restless
Different Day -Same ShiteCreationists do not tell lies to defend their view on creationism. There is simply no proof to support these ideas and thoughts that believers of creationism are trying to push on others. Many of the facts they are trying to use are the proofs of evolution which is no longer a theory anymore. Evolution has been proven a hundred times over now. I do not understand why people are still having a problem with that. It is happening around us everyday. Just look at your children. They are a slight improvement over the previous generation because of evolution and in addition they are carrying all the genes of all the previous generations of life.
So .....If creation is a theory and evolution is a theory and according to a few neither can be disproven...if neither can be disproven that means they are both valid?
No it doesn't. As a theory, evolution has masses of irrefutable evidence and a central 'story' that reflects and explains that evidence - with overwhelming world-wide peer review and agreement that supports it.
Creation theory has no evidence or credibility, however it does have peer review and agreement in one small area of the world where evolution seems have got itself into a dead end.
Yes that appears to be so. However a theory is a theory until it is disproved according to some on this thread, So if it remains disproved then it is valid according to some until something comes to the fore to disprove it?
Since evoluton or creation cannot be disproved why are they not both valid?No they are not - there is NO PROOF of ny kind for any creation theory, it is a wrong answer from a book that the so-called theory is trying to get to. This is like me claiming that I am the messiah and dragging evidence around me to prove it, just because you can't prove I am not the messiah does not validate my theory - it is only validated with real proof - I can't show you any miracles associated with my birth and I can't bring dead people back to life etc so - there is no evidence - as there is no evidence for creation theory.
Apparently there is no proof in evolution either? Just theories that are not proven wrong. Which was my pont. Evolution says we have a common ancestor... some think Monkeys. Creation says we were made from dirt and have a common ancestor. Perhaps the dirt turned into monkeys and here we are? We don't know because they are theories! Which is my point. Being theories they could very well be both valid. If one cannot connect the two and choose to see both as separate, even that won't matter really because they are both theories.
I can’t make out if you are trying to be funny or obtuse, I think the point you are attempting to make is ‘a theory is a theory until it is disproved.....’ should continue to say or proved! But of course we are all talking about Scientific theories here and when it comes to Darwin’s original theories most of them have been well and truly proved beyond all reasonable doubt. I use the word reasonable advisedly, there are more than a few who cannot or will not accept facts.
As for Creation as written in Genesis this is not a theory of anything, it is a grossly over simplistic story of how we got here, devised by someone who knew as much about the subject as those who were asking the question.
There is nothing in the Biblical story of Creation that has not been disproved up to and including the notion that it was dictated to Moses by God himself.....
But of course you know that !
Actually I wasn't trying to be either. That would be your perception entirely!
If there was another multiple choice option perhaps I can tick that box?
If you care to read the thread I posed a question from observing the different responses? Nevertheless if you would like to engage in dicussion I am ok with that..
What facts do you think I cannot accept about evoluton?
In the days of Genesis how advanced do you think they were? Why would it not be simplistic, since they were not advanced as we supposedly are?
Just so you know I did not know moses wrote the bible?You ask; “What facts do you think I cannot accept about evolution?” Answer is I have no idea, but if you accept any then it can no longer be a theory to you.
You say; “In the days of Genesis how advanced do you think they were? Why would it not be simplistic, since they were not advanced as we supposedly are?”
That’s the point I was making, if we are supposed to have advanced How come we are both here on this Forum discussing Evolution Vs Creationism as if there was anything to discuss ?
You conclude; “Just so you know I did not know Moses wrote the bible?” I didn’t say he did, it is just that he is attributed to writing the first five books of the Old Testament, complete rubbish of course, but like so much of the fairytale if a lie is repeated often enough a lot of people will eventually believe it and then defend it !
Ok thats great, and you are quite right it is not a theory when you accept anything as fact. I am a little different in that respect. Fact holds no real importance to me because it can change just as theory can any time new information comes to the fore. For me both theories have merit. Both theories can be fact.
As for the bible I don't really know who attributed what nor does it matter. What matters to me is the wisdom that comes from it. If you see rubbish... well so be it!I'm not sure why but I seem to be spending my afternoon apologising to you. Must be my poor use of the English language.
I didn't mean to imply that the Bible was rubbish, just the theory that Moses wrote the first five books was Rubbish.Oh Moses writing the book is Rubbish...ok
Perhaps it is my poor English? I don't know? My apologies if it is?
There is usefulness in trying to understand anothers English, I learn something new every day!
And as usual another attack on the bible to prove your point. You wonder why creationists attack evolutionism when you are always attacking creationist beliefs. Ironic.
Why do you consider any statement of truth as an attack ?
It is certainly not intended as such. Creation as per Genesis is a story, nothing in it has any provable foundation in truth, in fact quite the contrary. As a theory, as you will have it, everything has been scientifically challenged and left wanting !
That is not an attack it is a simple statement of fact. The fact that you do not or cannot believe or accept it is incidental to the discussion.
Or must reduce ourselves to the Kindergaten style of argument of; "Is Not !.... Is Too ! ???
But the THEORY of evolution is still just that........a theory.
We have been over and over this so many times now - if creationists want to cite scientific proof for their inane theory then scientific rules apply. - Evolution is a well proven theory with EVIDENCE tons and tons of EVIDENCE - this makes it a FACT that remains a theory because all the related questions are not answered fully. Creationsim has
ＮＯ ＥＶＩＤＥＮＣＥ ＮＯＮＥ ＮＩＬ ＺＥＲＯSo, now theories become FACT with unanswered questions. Then tell me which of these THEORIES with unanswered questions are FACT:
Big Bang THEORY
String THEORY
THEORY of Everything
Universal Expansion THEORY
???You really need to read up on how a theory is used in the scientific world before you use it as an argument.
Evolution is theory. Creationism/ID is not theory.
Evolution is no longer a theory. It was a theory when Charles Darwin first proposed it because he did not have today's technology to prove it. The Galapagos Islands is the prime location where proof of evolution is still occurring even today. The results from genetic experiments have supported the evidence of evolution many times already. There are many books and journals on it. People are only reading want they want to believe and pushing a side what they do not want to believe when the evidence is right there in front of them all the time.
Oh, ok. Why didn't somebody just say that earlier? I retract all of my earlier posts. Evolution is proven now because melpor said so, and there are no more unanswered questions. Everyone in science working to further prove and disprove evolution can quit now. Thanks for the update.
Of course, and if you actually understood what a theory was, you would have no problem with evolution. Creationism is an uniformed assertion, so far removed from anything even remotely concerned with theories that it falls under the category of myth or fairy tale.
As a believer, you prefer to embrace the myth. One wonders why believers don't walk off cliffs or tall buildings believing they can fly considering gravity is a theory.Of course I understand what a scientific theory is here are some:
Big Bang THEORY
String THEORY
THEORY of Everything
Universal Expansion THEORY
I don't have a "problem" with any of these THEORIES or the THEORY of Evolution, but that doesn't mean they are correct.
Oh, I almost forgot, Gravity is a scientific Law. Not a theory. Are you sure you understand what a theory is?You see, you continue to fabricate or perpetuate fabrications. Gravity is both a law and a theory. Evolution is the same. As a law, natural selection occurs. As a theory, evolution explains how natural selection occurs.
As a law, gravity occurs when an object is dropped in a gravitational field. As a theory, gravity explains this phenomena.With respect to what you wrote,
"One wonders why believers don't walk off cliffs or tall buildings believing they can fly considering gravity is a theory."
In this case above "gravity" is a Law. I understand the difference between the two. It is you who had to re-evaluate your statement.Funny how that one way or the other, you still don't have an argument and you still haven't supported your empty claims.
-9.8 m/s^2
Need more support than that? You could get a stop watch and throw a ball in the air if you like more proof.That is only relevant on earth or a planet of equal mass. Nice distraction to your empty claims, though.
I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why evolution is a "great controversy". But, I suspect that is not forthcoming.First, the examples you gave were on this planet, hence the Law of Gravity applies.
Second evolution is a great controversy, because not everyone agrees.
con·tro·ver·sy
noun
\ˈkän-trə-ˌvər-sē, British also kən-ˈträ-vər-sē\
plural con·tro·ver·sies
Definition of CONTROVERSY
1
: a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views : dispute
2
: quarrel, strife
See controversy defined for English-language learners »
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controversy
From your discourse on this thread it is apparent that you do not know what a theory is. it has been explained to you multiple times onthis thread and yet you have still failed to read what people have written.
A scientific theory is a theory because in the scientific world any theory on how the world works is open to debate. The theory of evolution is how evolution works, there is a difference between evolution in teh world and the theory of evolution.
Every aspect of science is a theory, the theory of motion is a theory, even though the theory is well supported by irrefutable formula.
You are allowing Creationism propaganda to filter into your consciousness. Creationism is not a theory. It is a religious belief.
According to some on the thread it is a theory. Ok? A theory according to the thead is somehing unproven. Read the thread perhaps then you will know why I posed the question.
As used in SCIENCE, a THEORY is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been TESTED and CONFIRMED as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
So could you explain how a scientific theory is on the same level as a book of MYTHS, written by unknown authors, with, apparently, no real knowledge of science?Can you please explain to us which one of these THEORIES is "TESTED and CONFIRMED"?
Big Bang THEORY
String THEORY
THEORY of Everything
Universal Expansion THEORY
Yes, right after you explain how "GODDUNNIT" has been tested and confirmed.There you go making claims to science, but mixing it with faith.
So I see you are protecting the delusion by any means necessary.
You really do just waste time on the internet.And sometimes people will find all kinds of ways to defend their propensity for willful ignorance.
You appear to be intelligent, so just lose the fear, and you can start using your education in support of the truth, instead of trying to convince yourself(with the assistance of reason) that an outright fraud is sacred."start using your education in support of the truth"
This is exactly what I am doing, but my belief requires no formal education. Your belief does, and those who don't possess that formal education, argue the cause, and believe what you do are blind to faith also. I have no fear, except for that of GOD.That much is clear.
Is that why you are angry with those more fortunate than yourself who received an education?
I understand why you fear GOD. He really hates us huh?I am angry with no one Mark. I should have been more clear. I fear the wrath of GOD at his judgment for those who have not repented. God doesn't hate anyone. Hope this helps you understand.
LOL - So you do not actually fear GOD? Because you have groveled and repented because you are weak. You were just trying to scare others. OK - got it. I thought lying was a sin - but it appears that is not the case.
I am immune myself as I understand it is bronze age nonsense.
So- you speak for GOD now? You are qualified to say what he feels? Hope you understand how funny this is.I am trying to scare no one. Everyone has free will. I have groveled an repented because I am weak, but I strive to do better. Not just mock those who do.
I'm glad you are, "immune myself as I understand it is bronze age nonsense." As long as things align with your beliefs then all is well.
I speak for no one but myself.I see - so when you say this god thing does not hate anyone - you are not actually qualified to say that. Interesting.
Yet you fear it/fear it's wrath for those who have not repented. And are quite happy to pretend that is not to generate fear in others. No wonder you hide behind a fake user name. I don't blame you.Yeah, I guess you're right. God could hate someone if he wanted, but I don't think he does. That is why he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins. Why would it put fear into anyone? Does it put fear into you? No? Then why should it affect anyone else who is confident in their belief? I repented for my sins because I wanted to, not because of fear. I did it before I knew anything about the judgment of God. Fake user name? This is the user name I chose, and the only one I use unlike some people.
So - why are you so scared? You are the one saying you fear.
How dishonest. I thought lying was a sin. Are you scared of judgment now?I am scared of GOD's judgment. That is why I strive to do better.
ediggity wrote:
I have no fear, except for that of GOD.
ediggity wrote:
I fear the wrath of GOD at his judgment for those who have not repented.
How dishonest. I thought lying was a sin. Are you scared of judgment now?
It applies to everyone Mark, not just me.
You must be very proud to have made such an achievement without a formal education.
To me it appears the ultimate foolishness to be an adult, and still have a ridiculous fear of an imaginary being.
Have you ever actually thought about just how absurd this looks?
You are right, your belief requires nothing but mindless obedience. Those of us who relish the freedom of our own thinking and have confidence in our own abilities to discern folly from reality, find this confounding and oppressive.I thought about how absurd it looked all the time growing up in an atheist household. "Relish the freedom of our own thinking" and formal education in the subject you believe are two different things. It seems you've traded one faith for another.
No.
It seems that you will say anything if it supports the delusional belief in abject foolishness
...even going as far as using reason to support an outright lie. There is much to be ashamed of, yet by believing that you are doing the Lord's work, you imagine yourself beyond reproach.
This is why I despise religious indoctrination. It turns you against your own mind. Lose the fear, and you will be able to think. Until then, your responses will be nothing other than absurd, because you are arguing in support of an absurd premise.Me do the lords work? LOL now that's funny! I am just stating my opinions and observations. I think everyday, it's a requirement. I don't see how everyone gets so worked up over this stuff, LOL. Doesn't anyone else watch NFL on Sunday? You guys are distracting me.
Pardon Us all to hell for interupting the NFL....What's that anyway ?
Mark and I are from the other side of the pond so watching something called F-O-O-T-B-A-L-L where you don't actually touch the ball with your foot is not something we get on our TV.
Sundays are for having an enormous roast for lunch and then settle down for a spot of G S B. Childish I know, we don't get any reward for winding up the over zealous but it's fun and passes the time until Monday.NFL is American football. They touch the ball with their foot on kick off, field goals, and punts. I don't know what GSB is, but I'd give it a try if it tastes good with roast.
Now wait just a minute, Merlin! I may not want to converse with the time-waster anymore, but I am not going to sit by and let you disparage our great game of football! If it wasn't for this brutal and vicious sport, the cults would definitely be even more antagonistic than they are!
Do you think it is just coincidence that the Bible Belt has the best high school and college teams? LOL!You mean they'd rather be out playing football than in the classroom....
I can understand that !!!
Neither does flipping burgers at McD's. Common ground, perhaps?
Yes, it is quite easy to understand why and how those who do not have formal educations would argue such a cause.
Rejecting faith does not mean one is blind to it, but instead they recognize it all to well. Perhaps, a lack of a formal education does not give one the capacity to recognize and understand such things.
And, the fact that one would equate a formal education to a belief should in no way detract attention away from the fact a formal education was remiss.
Too bad, sometimes a formal education grants the individual one less myth to fear.It's sad you find it acceptable to make fun of people who work at Mc Donalds. It really shows bad character. The extent of my education is of no importance in my belief, nor is anything else I have accomplished, or will accomplish for personal gain. Lastly, if you have no formal education about your scientific belief, then you are also blind to faith.
well ediggity
That is why he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins.
only one son?? your absolute fact book genesis don't think so
genesis6.2: That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair;
apparently he had more, em.........can spare one for us!!!
well if you get up after two nights and one day how exactly it becomes death?You forgot begotten, as in Monogenes. We are all God's children.
I'm Not ! Leave me out of it !
I've already sent all the Christmas cards and bought all the Prezzies I'm going to buy and I didn't buy one for God !
Mind you can't remember what he got me for my last birthday, Oh Yes I can.... Nothing !
the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them
if all are god's children the why specifically say sons of god and daughters of man??why not children of god married each other? who are these nephilim then?
you still haven't answered about the talking snake?
What is there to explain? You are talking about a book are you not? I am talking about those who have observed, experimented, and reasoned! They too have confirmed principles around natural phenomena.
Why does there have to be levels? And why cannot they both be valid? This was my original question.
Surely you are not talking about the biblical account of the explanation of natural phenomena. Instead of experimenting and reasoning, the whole premise is based on ignorance and conjecture.
Because believers start with a conclusion, first, then gather "facts" to support their premise.
creation is a mythology ie like fairy tale.
evolution is scientific theory (theory in science has huge body of evidence backing it)Hey BB,
Do you get the impression we're trying to push water uphill here ?
There is a solution to ignorance, but I can see no solution in the face of blatant almost hysterical religious fanatical denial of things that are so clearly defined and well established and documented fact.
It almost turns ignorance into an art form when anyone can live so comfortably with such a large contradiction yet be content in that ignorance while also being happy to accept and use every advantage and benefit science and technology brings to the table.
I have studied it and tried to find answers, I have asked questions and instead of answers I get Religious rhetoric and Biblical quotes, not to mention the threats for daring to challenge the comfortable status quo!
Perhaps there is no answer perhaps this is Evolution working, a common animal species with different mental capacity to comprehend different things. One needs a mental crutch to sustain it from cradle to death the other does not. Perhaps we are genetically different in such a way that neither has the capacity to understand the other.
After all birds don’t understand why some people put out food for them, doesn’t prevent them from eating and enjoying the food.
Not according to some on this thread. How do you mean that it is a fairy tale?
If bible says man was made from dirt, dirt would have had to evolve to become what we are today?
Might have taken a while, in terms of what we know as time, but here we are.
Heaven and Earth according to the bible were created, doesn't say where the materials that made us came from. Scientist believe the heavens and earth were created from the big bang..perhaps the material came from that?
What we choose to label the process of coming in to being doesn't change that we are here.
There doesn't seem to be any reason why the two cannot be both valid. Perhaps they work together?I totally agree with you PFH.
I dont know why atheists or agnostics feel that evolution denys creation.
There are Christian scientists for goodness sake ,and many Christians involved with research ,geology,palentology,biology etc etc, who work alongside people who are unbelievers.
For the majority of these Scientists, education and learning is their first love.
God created the creation , Science defines it, and continues to find new truths ,new creatures,and new ideas.Two small points, not all those who deny the Biblical version of creation are atheists or agnostics and it is wrong of you to make such sweeping generalised statements.
Darwin’s description of Evolution contradicts the Biblical version of creation and he was neither atheist nor agnostic and for the record neither am I.
Whatever else you may think or believe, and in spite of many of the remarks you may see on this and many, many other forum posts, I am not anti Christian or any other religion for that matter, I am merely trying to understand why anybody would cling to an idea that is so outdated and so very clearly and scientifically wrong as the Genesis version of the creation of the planet and us.Just so you are aware, most religious scientists are either Christians because of their upbringing and do not practice teh faith, or have different views on religion and the interconnectedness of teh world which is a far stretch from Christianity.
If you asked any scientist if he believes that Jesus fed several thousand with a loaf of bred and a few fish, then you can 99.9% of the time guarantee they will not believe in that story, likewise a man rising from the dead, water in to wine, etc. Nowadays many Christians say that these stories are note meant to be taken literally, however the whole basis of Christianity is based on the divinity of Christ.Eaglekiwi, I fully agree with your responses.
So - you agree evolution happens over millions of years and we evolved from apes then? Good for you. We are simply talking monkeys in effect? (NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK!).And this does not contradict the biblical creation myth?
Mark, Sorry, you are having trouble with your comprehensive skills as usual. I will not waste time with your nonsense and games. Perhaps, you should play Nintendo or race car games on the computer to try to fill the void inside of you. Take care.
No - I understand just fine thank you. Nonsense and games? We are evolved from apes. Science has proven this.
Why do you feel the need to attack me though? I have no comprehension problems - nor do I have a void inside of me. Passive aggressive attacks are still attacks. Love the "take care" after the attack though. Nice.
I'm afraid to tell you but BB is correct the whole Biblical version of creation is pure myth.
We are made up chemicals and a lot of water, star dust if you like, sorry but no dirt involved.Whether it is a myth or not is not what I am pointing to. Some people believe it is myth some theory.
And it is more useful in my opinion to look into the validity of what another believes rather than discarding it, before exploring it.
I do agree we are made of star stuff, as is most things. Is dirt excluded from that in your opinion?Unfortunately most of the atheists in this thread have explored religion, and still discredited it. You are also taking an oversimplification of man being made from star dust and turning it in to an argument that we culd be made from dirt as in the genesis version of events. How evolution spans a period of time which is literally incomprehensible to the human mind. The hundreds of millions of years it took for even basic life to emerge on earth is millions upon millions of times longer than the entire existence of the human race. It is a far stretch from some geezer with to much time on his hands making some human figures out of mud and then magically turning that mud in to a complex functoning body.
It is still theory according to some. What is still debateable since it is a theory is the time frame you are indicating.
And yes I do see that Athiests have their own opinion. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.Not really. But I see why you do not understand. Nothing wrong with that per se. In my opinion. You can't help it.
There is a theory and there are facts. Speciation can't be seen in decade or hundreds years span so it's debatable. But that doesn't mean whole evolution is a theory and not facts.
It's creationism which is theory tossed by bunch of bible lover conservatives to preach Christianity. Creationism has no support from islam, hinduism and other religions. Creationists are there only to preach bible inside science.
Creationism.org is funded by church and conservative baptist church, LDS, JW and other conservative theist crowd. Same is the case with conservepedia. If creationists have so much facts then why not prove it in public court ? get that stuff into wikipedia if it's true instead of opening extreme opinion website like conservepedia. No wonder Jim wales don't entertain such crap from creationism on wikipedia.
You have to see what are facts and which side is making theory here.This has been debated endlessly early on in the thread. You might like to read the whole thread as there are some that will agree with you and some that don't.
Who is right or wrong is irrelevant for me. It is how they can work together that I am pointing to.
No...there is much proof of evolution. The world has moved on beyond Darwin.
No, the world hasn't "moved on" There is still great controversy over the THEORY of evolution.
here is something that is proven beyond doubt. everyone should believe it - without any doubt and should be taught in schools.
A walking dead Jewish deity who was his own father although he always existed, commits suicide by cop, although he didn't really die, in order to give himself permission not to send you to an eternal place of torture that he created for you, but instead to make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood, and telepathically promise him you accept him as your master, so he can cleanse you of an evil force that is present in mankind because a rib-woman and a mud-man were convinced by a TALKING SNAKE to eat from a magical tree.well ediggity what happened to the talking snake of genesis? what about the dinosaur bones?em!.............may be they missed noah's boat!! wonderful!!
Funny you should ask that I was always interested to find out where Neanderthal man and Dinosaurs fit into the Creationist equation ?
I can’t remember seeing either getting a mention in Genesis or anywhere in the Bible for that matter.
Surely if Genesis is correct shouldn’t man and dinosaurs been walking around together ? Funny nobody noticed, or perhaps they did and forgot to write it down or couldn’t spell it so left it out.Wow, jomine. I am really impressed with the improvement of your sentence structure in this thread compared with your first posts on HP. It's almost like the writing of a whole new person. I am glad you learned so much from Hub Pages over the last 13 days. Keep up the good work.
Oh, about the bones. They were ground up and turned into jello. There's always room for jello.what about the talking snake, specially created to "tempt" Mrs. Adam???
some more genesis facts.
"And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat"
god wanted to see humans naked..why else he got angry when they covered themselves with leaves? (i can understand why he wanted to see Eve naked, but Adam...........too much!!!
"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him"
Are we not fortunate that he didn't find a rhino as is help? seeing all this believers i am not sure that he didn't find one.........
again so much for god's omniscience.
God liked Abel's offering not Caine's(obviously who don't like meat, with some wine it would have been better. but Caine how dare he give all that veggie stuff .Idiot!!
then after killing Abel Caine was afraid "that every one that findeth me shall slay me"
Look!! proof for tissue culture or is it clonning? how else "every one" slay him
While I'm almost absolutely positive you will never explain this "great controversy" or even offer anything remotely non-mythical, I'm also sure you'll continue to make those same empty claims.
I'm well aware of the fact that you make specious claims and then run away leaving a google link or some other link in your wake without making any effort to support your claims. This is no different. Of course, just down the list from the link YOU provided is this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Yes, have fun.Check out the "scientist" featured in the first google listing. He has a degree in electrical engineering and none in any branch of science related to evolution. No wonder you are confused about science! LOL!
Good catch. Maybe they didn't have any Evolution degrees at his college? I mean someone with an engineering degree should have no credibility with respect to evolution. The only branch of science that should have a credible opinion about evolution is the evolution branch.
Maybe? Maybe he doesn't know anything at all about evolution and is merely religious. There are many like him, you know. But "maybe's" do not help your argument at all. You do indeed like to waste time on the internet.
ETA- "Good catch"? It was the first link given on the page. It's not like I had to search though lots of links to find this. Obviously, you do not research the links you provide as supporting your argument. I am through "wasting my time" on you.There are a whole host of degrees that cover evolution and the ascension of man.
To cover the last tactic used in a futile attempt to discredit people on this thread,
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=c … ion+degree
"I am just a regular dude who likes to waste time on the internet."
What do you expect from someone who has this quote as their entire profile info? LOL!
clearly, you are ignorant to what theory in science means
Clearly, you are ignorant on how to apply the scientific method, or what the foundation of it is.
I have a Bachelor of Science degree & a teaching diploma. I taught science to teenagers and worked in labs. I'm pretty sure I know about the scientific method.
How 'bout you?
BORED NOW !!!!
Besides going round in ever decreasing circles can lead to only two conclusions one I'll get dizzy or I'm going to disappear up my own Butt!
As per usual we have reached the sad level where not one substantiated fact has been provided in support of the Biblical version of Creation yet we are treated to same hogwash that Evolution is an unproven theory.....Yes, but according to our creationist friend, you can simply "confess your sins, and ask for forgiveness" and retire to bedlam.
Exactly! Science needs facts, religion needs faith, and this is why the controversy will continue. . . . . .
what is faith??
is it not believing in something against reason and logic?? against things we can see and appreciate? believing in something that has not left any evidence of its existence?
again how you can say faith in something or someone is better than faith in some other thing (eg:- YHWH is better tjhan Allah or Krishna or bible is better than say quran or gita??)
Indeed. When I was a believer I didn't realize just how absurd it is to argue for something as profoundly nonsensical as religious beliefs.
It's embarrassing.Ok, Merlin Fraser
lets make the same demand out of you the you require of creationist. Give concrete incontrovertible proof that evolution is true and correct. It actually takes more of a blind faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in creation. I really find it annoying that you find it necessary to demean those that cannot argue the facts about both issues.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you also find it necessary to promote your view that there is no God- if there is no God why do you need to deny a myth-obviously there is a God or you wouldn't have anything to deny it so vociferously.
Yes I do believe in a personal God, and yes I do believe in creation. But before you decide to argue with me about it PLEASE do me a favor and at least find out what you are talking about. Until then you are only making a fool of yourself. So that you do not have to strain your limited mental abilities the term "Fool" used here has the Biblical meaning:
"THE FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART THAT THERE IS NO GOD".
Seeing that you do not believe in God , I really fail how you could possibly state that the term used above could possibly offend youSO - with reference to the arguments put forward in this thread where is the support for your creation theory ? There are mountains of documented, researched and analyzed FACTS for evolution.
Instead of calling people fool from your foolish place, provide a few facts.
Provide one piece of EVIDENCE that supports any theory of the existence of your god.
Provide one piece of EVIDENCE that supports your creation theory.
To make it easy for you you can Google 'Evolution' and find MOUNTAINS of hard fossilised touch it, feel it, smell it, evidence for it - that you can go see and touch for yourself.Who wrote that passage? And how did the author know what goes through a fool's mind?
Why are you so angry dude? There are millions of facts that prove evolution happened - that is why the theory was developed - to explain the facts.
Calling some one a fool for not believing your fairy tale of biblical creation is not very productive is it?
I mean - that is the reason I stopped believing this stuff in the first place - people like you who are so angry and aggressive telling me that Jesus loves me.Would the latter be your incontrovertible proof of your beliefs?
There is plenty of evidence out there proving evolution, and if you had actually read this thread, rather than just jumping in and making a series of uneducated statements, you would have realised that.
There is however absolutely 0 evidence, infact 0 reason for there to be a god. Atheists often get the urge to attack religion because it is a waste of human time, resource, and more importantly it is constantly trying to rewrite scientific fact and even history to protect itself. Rather than working to improve life for humanity it is now holding it back.
You look the fool for stating that there is no evidence supporting evolution, when you can see it in everythign from living creatures to the fossil records.
The bit that escapes me is this: absolute faith in something you can't prove but none in something you can. Odd.
As for the OP's question: because they can. A matter of choice, just like 'to have faith - or not'.What's even worse is if you prefer not to believe things that cannot be validated, then you are told you commiting a sin.
Personally, if there was a God, I would say that he gave us a brain to work it out and a heart to make sure we weren't too harsh on others when they couldn't.
Pennyofheaven Wrote :
"I do agree we are made of star stuff, as is most things. Is dirt excluded from that in your opinion?"
'Fraid So... dirt or the soil of the ground is predominantly organic in nature, leaf mould and other broken down vegetable materials which is a time thing. Yet another nail in the coffin of Creationist theory.... six days would not be long enough for the natural cycle of natural recycling of organic matter.
As for me discarding anything without consideration is a little unfair, I have explored it, discussed it challenge it and found the whole Genesis story to be wanting in every logical and scientific respect I can think of.
I do not dismiss what someone else wishes to believe, that is entirely for them, where I tend to draw the line is when someone uses ridiculous statements and untruths in defence of that believe.Yes agree six days may not be long enough nowadays or even in the days the bible was written? Which apparently was many eons later? We do not however know how long a day was in those days?
If this is one of the reasons it is discredited it is subject to an ongoing debate.
If we go on the evolutionary theory and the big bang. All things came into being from it. So whether it is inorganic or organic it is still star stuff.
According to Genesis heaven and earth were made first. Which would make sense then if man came next.
The Genesis period cannot be disproved except through comparisons of how we are today. In my mind that wouldn't make sense to compare it to today given the evolution theory. We have evolved in more ways than one. Perhaps the length of days has evolved. I don't know?
Given our magnetic alignment and that of the other planets being different to the days of Genesis it is highly possible.
If for you Genesis is wanting in every logical or scientific respect then so be it.
PS: Just so you know I wasn't referring to you when I said:
And it is more useful in my opinion to look into the validity of what another believes rather than discarding it, before exploring it.
I was referring to how "I" process information and the validity of it. Before I discard myths or theories I explore them first before discarding if I discard them at all.Facts that evolution it true?? you suffer from biased teaching. In all the years of my life not one scientist has been able to explain away the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics, nor have they been able to decide whether our cosmos is a open or closed system, I have seen arguments for both, but absolutely no one can tell me where the first pieces of matter came from to cause the "big bang theory". I hate to tell you this but evolution has not offered one piece of evidence that it is a true science, I really hate to pop your bubbles but Just because some egg-head says the dinosaurs were killed by a asteroid does not prove it, where is the evidence. And I really love the fact that you turn my question of me, I asked you to prove evolution or to offer prove , that you have not done.
The absolute bottom line is that you don't want to have to stand before a almighty God to answer for your life. Sorry but everyone is going to die, (ah entropy at work) and after death the judgment.
The very universe shouts out the existence of God, His Awesomeness and grandeur. the way the universe is the perfect timepiece but some idiot decided that that could all happen by accident. That would be like grabbing a piece of fecal mater and placing it in a bag, shaking it up and coming up with a brain- cant happen.
AS far as the Bible is concerned it has proven to be historically and archeologically correct and accurate. WE have over 25000 extant pieces of the New Testament from the 200-300 era, not to mention the massive amount of documented material , bot secular and non-secular, that confirms both of the old and New Testaments.
And I really love the people who state that it has been translated so many times---They really show their ignorance of lingisticsWell, it's interesting to see that the title of this thread is well underway and not just towards evolution.
It would appear that the title of this thread is not only relevant to attack, but also to defend.These artifacts only confirm the history of the Bible. They do not prove the validity of the stories in the Bible. The stories were passed down from one generation to the next by word of mouth and there is no telling how many times these stories have changed from the original words since they were not written until much later on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
You are aware that for the most part the dead sea scrolls are Jewish texts?
To me though it all appears to be stories upon stories, what interests me about the dead sea scrolls is that they are extremely old, and offer a unique window in to how people lived during that period.
This is hilarious, you are trying to discredit Evolution by talking about completely unrelated scientific areas? And if you want to know more about how elements were created, a good start would be looking in to nucleosynthesis. Since most scientists who work on the beginnings our universe are well aware of this I can only guess that your scientific friends are either very dim, or are in an unrelated field, botany perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
The very universe shouts out how insignificant we are, which is why many people search for a reason to be connected to something more important.The bible is rarely historically accurate, and many theolgians ahve had to numerously change the definition of 'time' to make the bible fit in to historic events so tehy can show them as proof the bible is accurate. If yo were to believe many biblical scholars timelines you will find that sons are born before fathers, wives live hundreds of years after their husbands, and some people live for centuries.
Are you sure you are addressing the right person? What question did I turn on you?
Nevertheless,if you are addressing me, you might care to read the whole thread and then my posts (or not) then you might have a clearer picture of how the dialogue has transpired.
Perhaps I can save you some time?
I posed a question as to why both can't be valid? Many on the thread were advocating that a theory is a theory till proved otherwise. Since some advocate creation is a theory/myth and some advocate evolution is a theory, both according to many posters on the thread were unproven. I then asked why they cannot be both valid?
So you are really are just repeating what a lot of others have said.
I still don't know why they cannot be both valid?I can see why you would not understand this. Oh well.
But the theory of evolution doesn't try to explain the origin of the universe at all, just us, humans and other life forms.
The biggest clue is here, in the title of the book generally considered the foundation of Evolutionary Biology- On the Origin of Species.
Evolution does discredit Genesis in my opinion, they both tell completely different stories, and many theist theories which try to link the two appear in my eyes to be flailing acts of desperation.
I would like to see some evidence as to our solar system working differently a paltry 4000 years ago though, are we talking the natural solar system cycles here? which would definitely not affect the lenght of days considerably, or are we talking the sun used to rotate around the earth?If it does in your opinion then it does.
There is no desparation in trying to connect the two. It is pure common sense I would have thought? If evolutionists say one thing and creationists say another that are similar (not exactly the same for sure) and yet both are unproven as some would advocate on this thread. I really don't see what the problem is?
What one or the other believes is not going to change the fact that we are here.
If you want to see proof of the solar system being different you would have to consult the evolutionists. Seeing it is a theory again you will need to use common sense to figure that if the planets were being created by the result of the big bang. Planets are still being formed while other planets are getting aligned and forming life or whatever on it.The formation of the solar system happened a long time before life appeared on this earth.
So - why did Allah wait 4.5 billion years? And what was wrong with His first attempt at intelligent life - the dinosaurs?
O.K.Bailybear.
Lets answer the original question and put this beast to bed.
1)Why do Christians tell such outrageous lies? First you assume that they are lies. Second, you assume that Christians have a monopoly on lying and that atheist, Hindu, earth worshipors or whoever don't lie. People lie. Out of erroneous conviction, ignorance and sometimes even out of intent. It is, to our detriment, part of the human condition.
2)Why do Christians feel a need to defend the Bible. What an absolutly absurd question. The same reason atheist defend thier references or why some defend the Koran, or dawinians defend Richard Dawkins or why anyone, anywhere, defends the tennants of their convictions.
Why wouldn't I create a forum question like "Why to Evolutionist tell such outrageous lies and why do they defend the proclamations of Richard Dawkins?" Its an absurd question, inherently assuming that everything they state is a lie and it asumes that Richard Dawkins is an idiot. I don't believe either. They make the same mistakes that we all make and the reason for discourse is to stimulate and provoke thought. It isn't to lead everyone to the same conclusion.
Disagreement and conviction are not evidence of lies or truth. They are evidence that we suscribe to notions which we hold as true. Doesn't make them true, but we damn well should believe them to be true if were going to argue the case.
There are those on all sides who simply regurgitate from whatever book they embrace, the latest documentary they watched or what they hear at church. So what? We all learn to walk before we run. Learning leads to change and is a process. Voicing what we think today is prerequisite to what we will think 50 years from now. Geez, you have as much right to Richard Dawkins or the Koran as Christians have to their Bible and I not only expect you to defend your reference, I would wonder who you were if you did not. A man without reason!As a mother of three well rounded children, two of which are adult and one almost of adult age, I find this a little insulting. My children are all of the above - and none were raised in a religious household.
Nothing teaches better than a good parent. You don't need to be religious to raise good people.
As an aside, I have friends that raised their children with a daily bible lesson, lots and lots of attention to their chosen faith - so on and so forth.
Their adult children are doing ok but neither practice virtue, neither remain in the faith and their daughter in particular often behaves in a manner that leaves a lot to be desired.
As I said - religion isn't a pre-requisite when it comes to raising a family.- brotheryochananposted 14 years ago0
You wanna talk about lies. lol. The mandate of every atheist here is to post misinformation, lie, present false scenarios and preserve the weak positioning of their vain and imaginary viewpoint that believes in nothingness. lol.
I wouldn't worry so much about how christians are perceived to be defending their God; i might suggest some worry about how they persecute God.
lies happen and lies occur. The thing is that people and christians, especially atheists are far to much under the law and totally omit the grace of God. In the OT.. lalalala life is good, pick up sticks on sunday - dead. In the NT of which everybody moans and groans about, lalalalala pick up sticks on sunday.. God reproves, the christian learns and grows (no death) a chance to experience a full life in God, correct mistakes and become stronger in living a holy life according the will of God.
Don't be beating yourselves up all the time.. make some mistakes, grow a bit, learn.. experience the love of God and eventually, "sin no more".
Its beautiful.
A few lies.. they need to be corrected, of course, and the aim of every christlikeian is to not lie, mistakes happen, but that does not exclude them from a life connected to God through jesus. Next time a lie may be prevented. There is a learning curve naturally.
I can be emailed There is problem because creationist connect abiogenesis with evolution and put argument. Ask theists in this thread and i'm sure not a single will raise hand for his understanding of abiogenesis, let alone evolution.
Not a single creationist proved his theory or proof which they spit in court. If you want to see all the lost cases by creationist, you'll understand the pattern in which creationists fail.
Evolutionists on the other hand are giving empirical proof when they claim something. Creationist never do that. See the problem ?Out of interest, what's abiogenesis?
What has court got to do with anything? Are you saying court decides what is proof and what is not?
It isn't about winning or losing in my opinion. It is about understanding where they are both coming from.
(Evolution/Creationism)
Personally I think they are both valid as I have alluded to early on in the thread.
So if I see both as valid what does that make me since I am neither this nor that but both?
Might be a bit difficult if for those who incline to one way of thinking, cannot understand how anyone can embrace both.
I am ok with that if that is the way they think.(Evolution/Creationism)
"So if I see both as valid what does that make me since I am neither this nor that but both?"
It makes you confused.
1) Evolution - changes the pass to subsequent generations is fact.
2) Evolution by Natural Selection - is a theory that has been supported by facts for over 150 years, without a single instance found that falsifies it.
3) Creationism is religious belief.ok if you say so.
If you cannot see creation and evolution so shall it be for you.Neither the fact of evolution nor the theory of evolution from natural selection care whether or not you "believe" in them. So if you want to believe a creator utilized evolution and natural selection as his mechanism of creation there is no harm done.
Still, that in no way makes belief and science equals. And btw, saying they are not equal does not mean that science is superior or inferior to belief, only that they are totally separate categories and cannot be compared.
Consult evolutionists ? This topic(solar system -formation and spread) belongs to astrophysicist and not evolutionists.
Haha ok whoever it belongs to? My point was our conditions today are not the same as they were then.
This falls under inflation theory and expanding universe for which all agree. There are plenty of evidence available which indicates expanding universe.
Abiogenesis is the study of how life arises from non-living systems.
Saying evolution is a theory is just a semantic dodge.
The existence of gradually changing forms of life is a fact given the fossil record. The ancient nature fo the earth and the relatively recent arrival of modern human is a fact.
To my mind if you understand that, whether you call it evolution or God's will isn't all that important.
Life began, life changed, humans are one of the more recent forms life has taken. It's all rather wonderful when you think about it.I'll save some keyboard hits, psycheskinner explained it already.
Creationists challenged the peer reviewed empirical proof for evolution in court and these cases are documented by ncse. When you challenge scientific community for educational input then it goes to public court,that's where creationism and court drama starts.
Agree it's not about winning or losing. Point is about challenging empirical proof with faith and mere personal bias which religious people and creationists do.
I disagree. Creationism is agenda to put bible under science approval. So without any proof creationism isn't valid.
In order to embrace another side you need to have empirical proof. You don't go with personal bias or emotions and claim earth is at center of universe right ? Personally i don't go with emotion when it comes to facts because emotions can make pink invisible unicorn alive.
Oh Ok so for you, courts decide what is and what is not.
Whether or not creationists have an agenda cannot be determined by a few examples or assumptions. If that is what you are doing?
Personal bias and emotions is your opinion and is not always why creationists believe what they believe.
You don't think they are both valid that too is your personal preference.
I think both are valid. You disagree. You don't think it is possible to embrace both unless you have empirical evidence. Yet I have stated I do embrace both. So if my choosing does not fall within your logic and reason we walk away agreeing to disagree. I can live with that.
Does anyone around here understand the term
"You Can't Educate Pork ?"After almost 3 years here I am finally getting that
If it means you can't educate someone with an inability to comprehend, then it is pertinent here because:
It has been explained thoroughly why a Scientific Theory and a Bronze Age myth cannot have the same validity, yet some choose to keep arguing the point as though nothing relevant has been said.
This is madness.
- Not for me, it's for creationists.
Creationism.org is funded by church minions and conservative extremists and they're quoting bible against evolution. That makes you think they have no agenda ? What else you need ?
Not just my opinion, creationist failed to prove it. Simple.
Nope. That is what proof tells us based on failure of creationists. If they're right or even worth to consider they should present empirical proof and not bible stories.
and this is the part you choose to ignore with your personal opinion, i can live with that.
Ok I don't think you understood me correctly. Church minions and extemists do not represent the whole of creationists. Just as the activists here do not represent the whole of our race. They are a minority. That is just like, saying since 10 girls where pink dresses, all girls must wear pink dresses.
So because in your opinion creationist failed to prove whatever. Their opinions are based purely on emotion and bias? Where does experience come in to play for you? Many of the creationists experiences cannot be proved with logic, reason or intelligence. Does not mean it is an emotional opinion but one that is based on experience. Kinda like knowing and not doing is not knowing kind of experience.
"Nope. That is what proof tells us based on failure of creationists. If they're right or even worth to consider they should present empirical proof and not bible stories."
Still a personal preference in my view.
What part am I ignoring do you think? That I have a view different to yours? Not sure what you mean by your comment
- Over The Hillposted 14 years ago0
I guess all evolutionists evolved from the planet of the apes.Not me. My God created me in His image.
- Over The Hillposted 14 years ago0
You`re just an antagonist. Why don`t you go bowling or something instead of wasting what brain you have on creating dissention?
The Big Bang Theory proves that the universe/earth was created, that the universe came into existence at a definite moment in time. Who created this? Who brought the universe into existence? After all of his research, the atheist Albert Einstein came to believe that there has to be a God. He never developed a personal relationship with God but he knew that a God existed. Every design has a designer. The universe has a highly complex design (there are about 26 different characteristics about the universe that enable it to sustain life and 33 characteristics about our galaxy, our solar system and planet earth that are finely tuned to allow life to exist). Therefore, the universe has a designer.
Furthermore, Darwinists theories have many problems. At first they thought the beginning of life was simple and emerged from nonliving chemicals without any intelligent intervention. But DNA was discovered and showed that the beginning of life was actually very complex. Moreover, the evidence of fossils also hurt Darwins theories of evolution. Darwin himself was concerned about the lack of evidence among fossils. Also, if all species share a common ancestor, we should expect to find the DNA protein sequence to be transitional from fish to amphibian and from reptile to mammal, right? But what we find is that they are isolated from each other, which rejects any type of ancestral relationship.
On a different note, where does the concept of fairness come from? Fairness is an internal awareness of how things should be. Why should we save the environment? Why should we give to charities? Why should we fight discrimination? Because we should, we ought to, its the right thing to do? Why? This sense of fairness comes from a moral law written in our heats. Moral law does not describe what is, it tells us what we should be doing, whether we are doing it or not. C.S. Lewis, a former atheist always argued that if there was a God why is the universe so cruel and unjust? He stated,"But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing the universe with when I called it unjust?" Thus, this realization of a standard of morality, of justice or fairness means there must be an absolute moral lawgiver. The reason all people start out with an awareness of right and wrong and why we yearn for fairness and justice is that we were made in the image of God, who is just. God has written this moral law in our hearts, as our conscience bears witness when we violate it.
(Bringing Your Faith to Work-Norman Geisler, Randy Douglass)Nope! Try again, and this time don't get your info from pro-religious sites. We have already discussed this ad nauseum. Al did not think there was a god who was concerned with our lives here on Earth.
Another religious sock puppet, that's all we need! Funny how true believers need to hide their real identities. I thought they were proud to speak out for JC. But noooooooooo!Evolution, as it has been taught for the last twenty years takes more conjecture and faith in the impossible than creation. There are indeed some folks who choose to advocate Creationism because it supports their presupposed beliefs. I personally find so much more logic in Creation and Intelligent design than any other offering to date. I find more evidence in nature to support this daily. My son tagged his first Bobcat yesterday. Up close and personal trip that it was! But, I gotta tell ya, between taking a really close look at beavers, foxes, coyotes and now bobcats, I can't fathom how any mind that wasn't brainwashed could believe these creatures were random and simply happened.
Micro-evolution I have witnessed in my lifetime. Meaning: Adaptation of behaviors or habits that significantly alter an organisms place in it's ecosystem. But something from nothing? Now that Sir is not only illogical, it is absurd.
If you ever really want to discuss this for something other than reaction and ratings, I'll give you my phone number, address, place of employment, my name, my kids names! But, Jesus does not require my defense, nor do I find pride in "arguing" about his existence. "All of nature gives evidence of the Glory of God." Why would a man try to trump that?Your first sentence reveals much about you. You clearly have a bible belt influenced mentality concerning evolution. And as far as endeavoring to have a serious discussion with you about anything regarding science is concerned, I am not yet that desperate.
LOL. So far from the Bible belt it's ludicrous! And your insults humor me! Wanna whup out academic pedigrees'?
I didn't say you were in the bible belt. Only that your opinions are influenced by the mentality. Academic pedigrees? I'm just a dumb ole dirt farmer. I would accept a hub written by you as a semblance of your desire to write on this site.
Or are you merely here to spread the word and save souls? Just why are you on these forums?
Laughable really. Still - it does cause a lot of ill will and fighting, so I guess that is what you find "nice." Some states in the US are still trying to force religion to be taught in science classes as factual.
Talk about not learning from the past.Can't you see what is nice about this? If not...oh well...
On a different note, where does the concept of fairness come from? Fairness is an internal awareness of how things should be. Why should we save the environment? Why should we give to charities? Why should we fight discrimination? Because we should, we ought to, its the right thing to do? Why? This sense of fairness comes from a moral law written in our heats.
Yes, shame about the fighting. When will people learn there is nothing to fight about and nothing to fight for when it comes to peoples belief systems. Fighting is all about trying to control. It rarely if ever works to change a persons belief system.
I am glad our schools are not like that. They teach both. It is still the parents who ultimately choose what their children are taught at home. When they are old enough it is their choice alone.No - your schools do not teach creationism as science. Dear me.
I didn't say that. I said they teach both. Evolution and Religion.
Did you even read what I said? Do you not understand that what you think of as "nice" is actually an attempt to have religious beliefs taught as science in science classes?
Which religion do they teach? Yes, I did read what you said. That is why I put in bold what I was saying "very nice" to. My comments after the bold was in relation to what you said about the fighting and the schools.
Was that not clear?
How is" morals written in the heart" an attempt to teach religion as science. The poster did write... on another note..... Which for me said, it wasn't related to the opinions expressed earlier on in the post.
Non denominational.Really - do some research. What is this entire thread about? The person who wrote that nonsense about morals being written on the heart is an evangelical American attempting to attack evolution (clue - what the thread is about) in order to have his religious beliefs taught in schools as science.
Good grief!Have you even read what this thread is about?
ciaoMy point is that you appear incapable of understanding what this thread is discussing.
Yes I understand. You just think I don't. Thats ok too. You are entitled to your opinion does not mean it is reality.
Like I said at the beginning of this thread. Something like.... Does it matter that one attacks evolutionists...it isn't going to change the way evolution works or how an evolutionists understands evolution to be.
Oh and the powers that be when it comes to Schools....will do what they want irregardless of what one wants. It is the majority rules that will determine what I would have thought.For what it matters - I agree with Mark, you clearly do not know what this thread is about and go round and round in circles trying to poke evolution about and find some justification for creationism.
Evolution is a science with proven facts to back it up - such as the fossil record - while creationism is a 'belief' based on old stories that try to explain the unknown - evolution is the actual explanation of the bit we now know about that they did not know back then.Are we picking up where we left off. Seems to me we are? So you have read the whole thread then? If you have, well, what can I say. You have already made your mind up, that you think I am trying to justify creationism.
I have had this discussion with you earlier on in the thread...or have you forgotten?...You never did reply to my last comment to you? A little refresher perhaps...
They are both theories as stated earlier on in the thread by many. How do you justify theories in your mind? Proven facts is what has been debated all the way through this thread. There are those that are pro-evolution and those that are pro-creationism. Both theories...that are unprovable mainly when you go back as far as the big bang. The beginning of evolution and for some creation.
Your argument is, if not the same, a variation of what pro-evolutionists have already stated on this thread. Nothing wrong with that. Except you are repeating what has already been stated over and over in this thread. So who is going around in circles?
If you have read the thread, you might see I have had to repeat myself to whomever because they did not care to read the thread. Again..... I see both theories as valid.
We were in the midst of discussion and someone else took over for you, perhaps that is why you didn't feel the need to continue discussions...I don't know.
Thank goodness this is not the case. I do not want religious zealots dictating through "majority rule," what my children are taught in science classes.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but teaching religious beliefs as science is no longer acceptable in most of the modern world.Oh its not the case in America. Thats cool. It is here.
There are not so many religious zealots her. Religious yes but not zealots like I have been hearing about on these forums. If they exist I have never heard about them. In Schools here, it is a matter of budget and the trustees (6/8 members) that vote on what gets taught and in accordance with what has already been established by the Ministry of Education. Could be more to it I don't know?
They don't teach religious beliefs as science that much I know.
I have no opinion on what should or should not be taught in Schools...Because for me, the current curriculum has flaws, without adding teaching religion as science!
I did not like that they tried to teach my daughter to fear God for sure. But I have more influence over my child than any teacher so wasn't too worried. She soon made her own mind up when she got older.
China Man i have to disagree,,,, but don't get angry since i only came to this thread since i saw your name....
In schools, eveloution is always taught as a theory......
So many prophecies in the bible prove it's authenticity, really they do......How could I get angry with you
the creation myth is a perfectly good metaphor for the evolution of man - but it is not based in any scientific reality - is the point I think ?And, evolution is taught as fact, just as gravity is taught as both theory and fact as well as a number of other concepts.
@Randy...In parathesises at the bottom of my post I wrote where I learned this informarion from, check out that book if you are interested. Futhermore, I would Love to know why you are anti-religion? From your family, from a bad experience? Are you in the science field and just strongly advocate for it? Just curious. Also, I'm not hiding behind my screenname, you mentioned something like that in another post. My last name is Rice I just didn't add my first name to my screenname, I wanted to be creative lol but if you would like to know more about me or have a real discussion, great! I don't have all the answers, I learn something new everyday nor do I want to persuade you but I am open to hear your point of view.
I did check out Norman Geisler, one of the co-authors of the book you cited. He stated that he believed UFO's were real and were the work of Satan. You prove my point for me when you quote from such people.
Why am I so anti-religion? Because such people as those you quoted are religious. Because they spread untruths and people like you put faith in them. Because I know many religious people who have absolutely no idea how the book they put so much stock in was compiled or who wrote it, for that matter.
But the main reason is, I haven't met any self proclaimed believer that any self respecting deity would choose to speak in its name. And that's the truth!@Randy...I find it interesting that you ignore everything in the post and focus on the author of the book that I got some of the information from, it's like you were trying to find something negative. Is the UFO/satanic thing that Geisler believes in kind of weird? definitely!!! lol But no one is perfectly "normal". However, the information that I provided in the above post poses some concerns and valid points that are worthy to look into.
Furthermore, I understand your concerns. I dislike religious people as well. It's not about following a set of rules it's about having a relationship with God. And when you have a relationship with someone you want to get to know them, spend time with them and please them. So I may not participate in certain activities because I know it will displease God but can I if I want to? Of course, but just because everything is permissible does not mean it is beneficial.
What is more, you are right, people are unworthy so I can see why you do not think God is speaking through them. But God does not ask us to be perfect...do you think we have to be perfect people in order for God to speak to us or love us? Negative! Moses was afraid to go speak to his people on behalf of God, he said I can't speak right, I don't know what to say, nobody is going to listen to me etc. God didn't say well you have a point lol He told him not to worry he will be with him.
Another outrageous lie.
I have heard this statement of having a personal relationship with God uttered by many believers, however, it appears the only relationship you have is with yourself.
If there is an entity that created really, it would not require or desire a relationship with insignificant life-forms.
- awesome77posted 14 years ago0
If you feel that the world just came about because of some explosion, then you need to ask your self how do they know?
If you believe the story of Adam and Eve, then you need to ask yourself who witnessed it?
Most believes derives its origins from humans desire to control other humans!
Personally, I do think we have a supernatural force in this world, you may call it God, Allah, Chineke etc!
I do NOT believe when one dies you go to hell or heaven! It is too far fetched, because no one has ever witnessed it and was invented by smart rulers to keep the growing population in check!
So, people use your imagination and do not just fall for what people wrote, because truthfully, no one KNOWS THE REAL ANSWERS! It seems to be perfectly ok to accept junk that was written by unknown authors, about supernatural acts that contradict common sense...but a sound theory like evolution has to have rigid proof, and be held to the highest scrutiny.
WoW!Not rigid proof, it is just theory. Theory that is based on documented observation just like the bible is. What is supernatural for some is natural for others. What supernatural feats are you talking about? That Jesus healed, or that he was calm in the midst of the storm. Or that God created the universe and all that is in it? What is supernatural to you?
I think you may need that dictionary after all.
Documented observation? That is the funniest thing you have said.
Super natural is supernatural for everyone. You are of course entitled to your opinions. That they have no basis in reality just makes conversation difficult. As I am sure you already know.Maybe in your country supernatural is supernatural yes. Not in mine.
As for documented observation :
If you go take a look at the link in the evolution or not thread and look at what someone kindly pointed out what a theory is scientifically. It still is a theory. Read a bit further it is close but not proven. Their logic is that it is documented observation. If science can get away with documented observation so can creationism in my view.
No, the bible is not based on observation or theory because no supernatural event in the bible has ever been recreated, tested or observed.
Kinda like what is magic for some is science for others?What super natural event are you talking about?
I'm sorry you are still misunderstanding the fundamental difference between a Scientific Theory and an outright silly, childish Myth.
I didn't realize your comprehension of the evidence would be so distorted.
This has become a foray into madness.No need to be sorry. Misunderstandings are normal. Which one is misunderstanding may be an ongoing debate. See my post to Mark. If you can justify that scientific theory is more valid than what creationist believe who also have documented observation. Then I am interested to know why you think that.
So far it has been explained to you what a Scientific Theory is, what a Myth is, what documented observation is... yet you persist in stating the same comment as when we all started this thread. You don't care about comprehending anything unless it fits into some absurd worldview that you, apparently, hold very dearly. This is not a debate. This has become futile and completely absurd.
So what is the difference between documented observation that hasn't been proven in science and the biblical history of what they observed and documented but cannot be proved by us 2000 years later? (or however many years later) . Incidentally only some view creationism as a myth so that is not the debate.
Instead of pointing out where you think I am failing to comprehend, why don't you spell out what the difference is to you? (Other than using Myth as part of your debate. That is your opinion) Because I see similarities that can unite them rather than divide them this is absurd for you. (I get that) Is this because being united they do not fit with your world view? What each of our world view is or is not, may make no difference to how it actually is. For all we know, we both can be false I am ok with that. Are you?You would be okay with worshiping the wrong god? Because if you are okay with neither of your views being correct, then it could be because you are indeed following the wrong supernatural deity.
And if this deity demands different loyalty than that which you think created everything, you might regret it later on when suffering the consequences. And you would be okay with this?Who said I worship one or the other or both?
Because you referred to biblical history being accurate in a previous post.
No where have I said it was accurate. I said why can't both theories (theories being the reason for much debate) not valid earlier on since they both can't be proven. Some are choosing to call creationism a Myth. That is their choice.
The argument from evolutionists point of view is that the meaning of theory in science cannot be applied to creationism. I am asking why not?
Being objective (neither being pro this or pro that) does not mean I worship either or.If one cannot see the difference in the validity of the evolutionary theory versus the biblical creation, then there has to be some religious aspect causing the confusion.
But like you, I see no reason why a believer couldn't accept both theories.Most of us do accept both theries as far as it can go.
Well, I guess that's something. I just don't understand why believers cannot understand how their all powerful being might use evolution to accomplish his means. Then, even science could be accepted by them.
Well I guess that they can listen to me. LOL
I think that the thing that evolutionary scientists are missing when they theorize their theories is that civilization has existed on this planet numerous times.
When they do not take this into consideration, they lay their little pictures out (you know the ones I mean) showing in artistic form just how we have evolved.
They got their facts just a little out of context when they do not take into consideration all of the facts,
Yes ! selective evolution does occur.
Short legged deer get caught by the saber tooth tiger and do not reproduce.
Them that run faster live long enough to make babies.
But Ya can't mix just a few pieces of five different jig saw puzzles together and show something to be true that isn't.I suppose I don't understand what you mean by civilization being here numerous times. I guess it depends on what one considers civilization.
And a compilation of small pieces of the puzzle will eventually give you the whole picture. Theories are all like that, even if you do not like it.
No, all aspects of the theory have not been proven to a finality, but enough have to assure us it is very close. Again, I realize this may not please those who bet their souls on the literal words of your Bible, but it is the truth just the same.
And the truth will set you free, as someone once said. But some don't desire freedom and would rather be ruled by their superstitious values. For them there will never be any truth but that which they are allowed to believe.
Calling the biblical creation myth a "theory," that is on a par with evolution is just funny.
There is no evidence for this myth - that is why it cannot be called a "theory".
I suggest the Oxford English - it will explain what "objective," means - as well as any number of other words.
Perhaps if you supplied some evidence for a creator? That might help. What do you think?According to this extract about Science and theories it seems it can be a theory however mythical and funny you might deem it to be........
In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Therefore in relation to creationism....
The bible is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported well-documented explanation for their (the writers of the bible) observations. It ties together all the facts about something providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In the bible their ultimate goal, is the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in the bible can be.
Objective: Based on observed facts.
We are evidence of the creation theory. We are evidence of the evolution theory. What more evidence do you need?
- Over The Hillposted 14 years ago0
Where are your current evolution stages? Surely in the last 150 years something would have evolved to a higher state.No progress,no proof.Pure balogna.
Even some believers can read now, although comprehension make take a few centuries more to kick in. Evolution marches on!
The idea that visible evolution in major mammal would occur in 150 years is... just... OMG. Wow.
Why do people criticise evolution so staunchl when they clearly know *nothing at all* about it.
But in species with short lifespans like bacteria, plants, some invertebrates (sp. sea urchins), yes, evolution has been directly observed within that sort of time."Why do people criticize evolution so staunchly when they clearly know nothing at all about it?"
For the same reason they so staunchly believe the written words of unknown authors who recorded myth and fancy. Willful ignorance.I would say the same thing about those who espouse evolution. Why do they criticize religion so staunchly when they clearly know nothing about it ? Have you even read what you are criticizing?
Of course I have read the Bibles. There are many different versions, editions, ousted books, etc. How many have you read other than the KJV?
I have read or am reading most of the modern translations, editions, ousted books etc. I can even read a little Greek and Hebrew and know several people that are fluent in both languages. The King James Version, although a good translation has a lot of outdated language because it was translated in 1611. I like the New American Standard for every day reading. Thanks for asking.
By the way, I have read some scholars that espouse evolutionary theory as well. I think I have as much idea of what they teach as you do from your reading of the "Bibles". There is no need to insult each other and I may be just as guilty as you are there. For that I am sorry.
My main point here is that we disagree and probably always will. Knowing the opponents beliefs on both sides is necessary to a good debate and It is my hope that debating this will not make enemies but will make friends who agree to disagree.
Religion and Science are not enemies. Science was born out of a belief in a God of order whose creation could be understood empirically because He is a rational God. Most early Scientists would not even be having this debate. Except for this theory, I think Science is still making major contributions to this world. What you must understand is the contributions that religion in general and Christianity in particular has made as well.
- Over The Hillposted 14 years ago0
Bet you believe in unicorns and the winged Pegasus huh Randy?
Of course not. But if they were mentioned in your biblical novel, you would.
The enemy (Satan) has used man & woman as an instrument to distort GOD truth. If we believe that the Bible is the very word of GOD, then no doubt should arise in our minds. Man is always trying to conjure some scheme or plan to make himself important. The word plainly tells us to stay away from people as such; these so called professing christians claim to know the scriptures, when in actually, it'll take a lifetime of learning. After all, we are talking about an eternal GOD, right? Be humble, contrite, & obedient to the LORD voice & act when called.
What bothers me most about the theory of evolution is the fact that in order for it to occur, you need life. No one in the scientific community has ever come up with a satifactory explaination as to how life is even possible. Life comes from life. If you take a living frog and chop him up into little pieces and wait a billion years, you'll still have whatever is left of a dead frog. There is no evidence I'm aware of that has been discovered that can dispute this fact. If there is, please enlighten me.
It seems to me that evolution is every bit a leap of faith as you claim Christianity to be. It is faith that time plus matter equals life. And by the way, where did the matter come from that life sprang from? Something has to be eternal. Is it matter, or the universe itself?Yes indeed. I'm going with energy. It cannot be created or destroyed. Yet some will say energy did not exist before the big bang or rather that it is not known to have existed. So it makes what you are saying more sensible.
What we perceive is one slice of a REALLY BIG pie. Can't go there, till we are ready, nothing happens till we're ready. EVER. You doubters should watch more Discovery and History channel stuff. Things are being revealed on a GRAND scale. All of our books are going to be needing editors. Anyone need a job?
These TV channels are full of Nostradamus and 2012 rubbish to get ratings. I prefer to read actual peer-reviewed journals and evolitionary theory is going from strength to strength there.
Oh really. Just as well I don't watch them then!
It is interesting that it could be thought that this vast and ordered universe with all of its complexity and beauty can have started by mere mindless energy. That is nothing short of a miracle that only a person of great faith can accept. And once again I must come back to life, the greatest miracle of all. Out of non-life, life was formed. If it were not Science, I'd call it a fairy tale.
Perhaps energy is not as mindless as some might think.
Ah! Maybe the energy with a mind you are talking about is God.
So now you must decide which of the many gods of the different religions could this creator be. It would have to be one with ultimate power, (i.e. energy). It would have to be a god with intellect, emotions and will. In other words, a person with the will and ability to create. And it would seem that he would need a reason to create. He would have to be a god of order since this universe has order. I see all of these things in the God of the Bible. A person would at least have to look at the possibility that this is the energy with a mind that you speak of. He cannot be accepted or eliminated until all of the claims made by the Judeo-Christian worldview are examined carefully before making a conclusion.
Evolution cannot answer the ultimate questions of life since it can't account for life itself. Only a search for an intelligent creator will help me to realize that life is no accident of chance but a deliberate act of the will of an intelligent God. I am here for a purpose. His purpose.This is nothing but the subjective worldview of an extremely indoctrinated mind...erroneous conclusions taken from absurd answers already hammered into our heads.
Indoctrination can come from all worldviews, even yours. Maybe you can at least entertain the possibility that Science may not have all the answers and could be wrong in some areas. Science is not infallable. Those that think it is are not only religious fanatics who make Science their god, but border on being cultlike.
Do you really believe God was worried about the tower of Babel reaching all the way to heaven? I wonder why he hasn't torn down all of the skyscrapers? Oh well, there was that twin towers thing, but that was because of a different god than yours, right?
Hmm...perhaps you are worshiping the wrong one! LOL!First of all it would seem that we can have an intelligent debate without resorting to sarcasm. Secondly, God was not worried about the tower of Babel literally reaching all the way to heaven. These people wanted to build a high tower as a monument to their abilities and enhance their own fame. It was an attempt to steal the glory from God and glorifying themselves.
In answer to your last question, the atrocities committed on 9/11/2001 were pure evil and had nothing to do with God. And I think that many, if not most Muslims would agree with that sentiment.Are you saying the whole tower of Babel thing wasn't real? That god didn't really destroy the tower and cause the people not to understand each other?
Wouldn't the tower have failed anyway with the builders finding out they could not succeed with their lofty plans? Isn't this merely a myth to explain the many different languages of the world?
And I disagree with the premise that science came about because of a belief in god. It came about through alchemy in the long search for how to make gold and other precious metals among other things.
Lumping all of the gods together as one doesn't do it. Can you prove there is only one god? Or that there is a god? Of course not, merely your opinion and nothing else.If you read the story in Genesis 11 they people were building a city and a tower. And it seems to me from the text that they were bragging about building a great tower for their glory. Not that it would literally reach heaven but that it would be a magnigicent structure that would show off their abilities. And the text says nothing of God destroying the tower.
As far as failure of the structure is concerned, some men of the past seemed to possess great knowledge and abilities that we are only able to do with construction equipment today. Look at the pyramids of Egypt.
To answer your comment on Science, I should have said modern Science. That modern Science has grown out of Christian soil is well documented by many people, including many non-Christians. Look at writers such as Alfred North Whitehead, the widely respected mathematician and philosopher. Also J. Oppenheimer, He wrote on a wide range of subjects related to science when he became director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton in 1947. It has also been amply substantiated in the discipline of the history of science by many scholars such as Duhem, Crombie, Jaki, Nebelsich and Kaiser. I could talk more about this but you get the picture.
In proving that there is only one God, only God speaking to us could prove His existence and that He is the only one. That is where Christianity is unique. We believe that God has chosen to speak to us ultimately, not just through the Bible, but through the living breathing person of His Son Jesus Christ. And His claims to be God are substantiated through the resurrection. If you study Christ and His life, you can know who God is.There is little evidence of Christ and his life other than hearsay reports by unknown writers. Your bible cannot substantiate itself and therein lies the problem.
There are very few real historians that don't believe in the historicity of Christ. There are secular records of his existence. As to the "hearsay" reports, the Gospels were written by men that knew Christ intimately since they were his followers. And these men, before the resurrection, were hiding for their lives. The Apostle Peter denied Christ because he was afraid of the authorities that arrested the Lord. But after the resurrection these men suddenly changed and became bold, proclaiming Christ to anyone who would listen. Most of these same men became martyrs for the faith. What would explain the sudden change in these men from abject fear to utter courage for their convictions. The most simple answer is that they at least thought that they saw the resurrected Christ. The Gospels were written by men who were transformed by their belief in a risen Lord and they wanted to proclaim it.
"There are very few real historians that don't believe in the historicity of Christ. There are secular records of his existence"
This is a lie and is the point of hte thread. Historians are in total agreement that there is NO secular evidence for any christ figure - and there is NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE none.
You should stop telling lies in defence of your crazy beliefs - if you want to believe them that is your right and a freedom that I would defend and have defended. There is no evidence for any of the biblical events attributed to a god or to a jesus figure old or new testament. To claim any kind of secular, corroborating, scientifc proof is the LIE.It's called lying for Jesus, CM. A common practice approved by church leaders in the past. The works of many historians have been corrupted by the church's zeal in trying to prove there actually is a god. Nothing new at all!
There is no proof the followers of Jesus wrote these books at all. If you have any proof, feel free to put it out there for us to see.
God Talk, Yes he is the only true living God.
there's been many fancier towers built since. What a simplistic claim to say why people have different languages - it's mythology, just like the flood story is mythology
Does it not say in the bible..Gods might have other names but they are the one God? Makes sense to me. Same process different labels. Therefore that is not a decision in my mind. How the different cultures have interpreted God will be subject to their environments and cultural upbringing at the time of perceiving God.
The energy I am referring to is not limited or definable by the mind of man. It is infinite in nature and does have those elements you are pointing to. It is everything and nothing. Pure potential. We and existence as we know it to be are evidence of its infinite power.
If God is in all things are you saying God is not in evolution?Acutally the Bible says that there is only one God. The names for God in the Bible are names that define his attributes but they are attributes of the same God. He says that "You shall have no other gods before me." Just like you or I have certain characteristics but are not a different person for every characteristic. Also, God defines Himself no matter what your upbringing says he is like.
Your understanding of God seem animistic. In other words god is in everything and everything is god. I can't see how this idea of a god is any better than having no god at all. How can pure potential that is everything and nothing create anything of substance that is as intricate and complex as the universe? If, as you say, it is not mindless, then it has to have the attributes that define personhood or at least a sentient being of some kind.
And I didn't say that God was in all things. He is trancendant or stands apart from His creation. And regarding evolution, it seems to me that they still haven't proved their case that evolution from one species to another has even ocurred. Adaptations within a species may abound because aniimals were made to adapt to differing environments in order to survive. But the fossil record for anything beyond this, just isn't there.
And I would add once again, can life come from non-life? Survival of the fittest depends on the fact that there is something alive in the first place.Yes that is what I said too. There is only one God.
What one chooses to call God does not mean they are not referring to the one God. Perhaps in your mind and maybe their mind they are not referring to your understanding of God. However, that is only because God is interpreted differently by another. Does not necessarily mean they are referring to another God.
How can one put another God before God if there is only one God? Perhaps that passage is pointing to how people are inclined to worship "things" or "people" of the world rather than what is within them?
Yes agree God defines what God is no matter what our upbringing is like. However, God can only be interpreted within the parameters of perception of the one receiving God which is highly influenced by the way in which they have been reared.
If one has have never heard of Christianity and have received a perception of God are you saying then that this is not God? Or just not your understanding of God?
Animistic? So the holy spirit is not part of God or is?
God is spirit says the bible.
How do you know God did not create us through evolution? It does not negate evolution nor does it say how God created us.
Non life only appears that way to some as I mentioned before.What I am saying is that if there is only one God, no matter what other perception that you have of God is wrong. And if God defined Himself then, if the understanding we are raised with of Him is not how He defines Himself then it is obviously wrong- It is not God. The Bible would say that in the beginning all men knew God but chose to go against Him and make their own gods, with a little g.. By this I mean an idol. An idol is putting anything in place of the one true God. All other idols are not real, but other peoples wrong perceptions of the one true god.
The Bible says that there is only one God. But that one God defines Himself in Scripture as being different from any other being that He created. The Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ and God the Father are not parts of one God but are God. It is a concept that the Church has defined as Trinity: One God eternally manifesting Himself in three persons.
I guess God can choose to create by any means that He wants but I see no evidence that He has revealed He has done so.
Regarding non-life appearing to be non-life, once again you seem to be equating this non-life with some sort of god. God has defined Himself as a person with emotions and will. In the Bible God says that He created life and all there is ex-nihilo or out of nothing..
What other perception are you referring to? There are many perceptions and no two people understand or perceive God in the same way. Thats why they have bible study isn't it? Intellectual understandings can be the same for sure, if one is taught this way. However if one experiences God, that is an altogether different understanding to the intellectual understanding.
So in your understanding God is defined by the scriptures? What scriptures are those? The original ones or the ones that have changed more often than not over the past 2000 years? In saying that, assuming that these changes were not made to what ever version, how do the scriptures define God in your opinion? Only that God is different to that which God created? Since we are temporal and only part of the whole, that makes sense to me. Does not necessarily mean we are separate.
If 'all' men knew God (and I don't disagree with that) and chose to do what they did after the original sin. Why then would they still not know God? Perhaps they changed their minds and decided to Know God again. If they already knew God there is not much to learn. Only to remember.
Yes I undertand what the holy trinity was pointing to. Did Jesus not say I leave the holy spirit for you (or something like that)? Is the holy spirit a person for you? Is God a person for you? Jesus in my understanding was the only person.
Heres a few examples of what I am pointing to about God is in all things. Especially us.
I will put my spirit within you. But the spirit intercedes when we do not know how to pray If God gathered unto himself his spirit and breath we will all die.
Perhaps since evolution was not discovered in the days of Genesis, no reference was made to it, because people would not understand it. Scientist are not fully there yet either.I'm not sure I follow all that you are saying but I'll try to answer. I am referring to God as a person with intellect emotions and will just like any other person. As a matter of fact intellect, emotions and will are what define personhood, not a body. God is a person without a body. He is a spiritual person. Being a person He has certain attributes and he doesn't have others. If you define God by the attributes that He doesn't have, that is not God. For instance God is not a liar because God cannot lie.
Bible study, as far as understanding God goes should dispel our wrong conceptions of who God is. We may have different perceptions of God but that doesn't make them right perceptions.
From what Sciptures do I get my understanding? I could get into a long discussion of how both the New Testament and the Old were painstakenly copied over the centuries until the invention of the printing press. And the Bible has more manuscripts today that prove its accuracy than any other ancient text. From the study that Hebrew and Greek scholars have done, any descrepencies that different manuscripts have had were minor and do not affect our understanding of who God is or any major theological theme of Scripture. God has prserved His Word and we can trust the Bible that we hold in our hands.
To answer your question about turning from God and then returning , you can turn to Romans 1:16-23. Man, in the beginning knew God and that they were created by Him but they chose to not glorify Him as God. And later in Romans 3:10 Paul teaches, quoting an Old Testament Scripture: "There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God. Man didn't turn to God. God in His love chose to go after man and save him.
Romans 1:23, among other verses, shows that God and man are separate. One is to be worshipped and one is not. When Man knew God in the beginning, as I said, He chose not to glorify Him as God but instead chose to exchange the glory of the uncorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and fourfooted animals and crawling creatures." Man began to worship the creature rather than the creator. God in another verse says "I will not give my glory to another."
Part of Hosea 11:9 says this: 'For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst." God is not man. Man is not God. It seems clear here.
In reference to your questions on the personhood of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit and God the Son, the answer is yes to all. All of the members of the Trinity are seen in Scripture to have the attributes of personhood.. They are one God eternally existing as three persons. They are not three gods or three ways of seeing the same God. The idea of Trinity or Triunity is another way God is different from any of the beings that He has created. He is one of a kind.
As far as evolution being not discovered in the days of Genesis, I point out that the fossil record does not support that one species evolved into an entirely different species. It does support evidence of adaptation within a species but that is a far cry from a gradual change into another.Please stop being untruthful. There is plenty of evidence for evolution to different species. We have even managed to replicate the process in a lab environment and record the event. Here are some resources to help educate you:
http://www.icsu.org/Gestion/img/ICSU_DO … lution.pdf
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.becominghuman.org/
The last one is a multi media presentation, but do not let that put you off - they have a solid factual basis for it.
I realize that being truthful is not a Christian value, but telling lies in order to attack science to defend your - I hope it is OK to be honest here and this honesty will not offend you - nonsensical religious beliefs - is really what this thread is all about.
But thank you for validating my opinion that Christianity's adherents have no moral compass and are incapable of developing one.
You clearly do not believe in your Invisible Super Being - or you would have developed an ethical code to follow in order to appease this Being.I had a read of your suggested educational material.
1 Is nothing more than a petition.
2 Controlled experiments in speciation. Nice try, but I emphasise "controlled".
I can jus see fruit flies crossing borders to breed with different strains in the real world.
This still begs the question of turning from slime to grass to trees, or from insects to vertebrates to mammals, let alone humans.
3 Bones lined up to suit the authors bias. He tells a nice fairy tale story. Just changes the intro from "once upon a time ..." to " "approximately 'X'-millions of years ago..." as if that were going to substantiate his perspective.
So, this is your source of "faith material"!
BTW, this is me you are talking , so you can drop the "wars" crap. It's getting old, don't you think?So - despite proof of speciation - you refuse to accept it because slime has not been turned into grass?
That a scientific term dj?
Here are some more references dj - all proven and accepted as genuine.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
But - it appears you want to see the entire 4.5 billion year progression reproduced for you every single step of the way before you will accept it. In which case - why lie by asking for any information at all? As I mentioned before - you do not want answers to questions - do you? You just want to fight.
Faith? I don't understand what you mean dj. This is actual, measurable data. That does not require faith.
No wonder your religion causes so many wars.Oh, I see.
Speciation of fruit flies, under controlled circumstances is proof enough to you that no life produced simple life. This then branched out into the multiple millions of life forms we now have today.
Oh, I want answers alright. Just not your genre of fairy tales, please!
You see. You admit to faith, then deny doing so.
Now that's called lying, in my book.(or anyones book for that matter)Aww - calling me a liar is not going to help dj.
But - you accept evolution from one species to another in that case? Good - at least we are getting some where.
You just cannot understand that the first life as we know it could have come from non-life.
You need a Majikal Super Being wot dunnit?
That right?
I think there is no point in attacking science; it will be counterproductive. Life goes on with religion and science hand in hand as perfect friends.
I was talking about the fossil record. Where am I lying? During the Cambrian Explosion virtually every phyla known to man just suddenly appeared. They all coexist in this layer with no apparent evoultionary sequence. Charles Darwin himself knew this but expected that it would be remedied with further research and discovery. The problem still exists.
This is what you said.
This is untrue. The fossil record does indeed support this.
As far as your red herring of the 50 miillion year long Cambrian "explosion" - the lack of evidence from Pre-Cambrian time certainly suggested there was an "explosion" of some sort - but your knowledge is substantially out dated - I suggest finding another apologist to copy from instead of whomever you have been doing. Further research suggests that a preservational bias" made the 50 million year long "explosion" appear more dynamic than it was.
The evolutionary radiation through this period does not appear to be any more or less rapid than any other period and a considerable number of phyla did not appear until well after the period.
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/programs/evol … rynow.html
Charles Darwin was correct - it has been remedied.'suddenly' appeared - another misconception spouted by misguided creationists
P-L-E-A-S-E ....Stop with the Biblical quotes, it proves nothing except that you are running out of anything original to say.
If you want a revisionary course in Biblical quotes how about these:
Genesis 1:26
And God said, let us make man in our image.
Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, then man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.
Genesis 11:7
Let us go down, and there confound their language.
Exodus 12:12
And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.
Exodus 15:11
Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?
Exodus 18:11
Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods.
Exodus 20:3, 5
Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
How many Gods are we talking about ?
You say One ? The Bible Says......
Even God agrees there's more than just him Quote:
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me. ... Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them."
So please can we stay on topic, if possible that is !Hey - this god is a person - just like any other person - with feelings to hurt and ego to salve.
I was answering pennyofheaven's questions and if you read them, they require answers about my beliefs. This forum seems to be going in all directions since it has been going so long. I would suggest that someone start another one in which those who want to inquire on the Bible and what it teaches is central so that those who don't wish to hear about it won't have to listen.
No - you are a perfect example of religionists telling outrageous lies to attack proven scientific facts. Which is what this discussion is supposed to be all about. I guess you could not be bothered to read anything huh?
So - Please stay on track, keep your biblical nonsense out of it and tell us why you need to do this. I mean - if evolution is true (as it clearly is) - do you see this as proving your religious beliefs to be wrong in some way?
Thanks.
Feel free to start a new thread pushing your particular version of biblical delusion. There is no limit to how many threads can be going at the same time.I guess it doesn't matter how many times I say this because you will never listen, but there is a difference between honest debate and attack. Usually people attack another person's credibility, their sanity or their reason when they cannot refute their arguments. I guess the whole premise of the original question should have given me a clue as to the kind of attacks I would encounter.
Sorry Mark,
So to which one should I say sorry ?
I agree one cannot define God by attributes alone. Attributes are born from flesh only not spirit. God cannot be known through flesh, one can only know God through spirit according to Jesus. And I agree.
Perceptions in my view are neither right or wrong just limited sometimes. When more information or experience is perceived perceptions change.
Yes I did say lets assume the scriptures haven’t been changed. You are saying they haven’t, others have a different opinion. And that is not really what we are discussing so it is not useful to go on about that in my view.
Re: Man knowing God
Yet in another breath Jesus says we do know God and we don’t remember and it is only through spirit we can, which is why we needed to be born again. We are born into flesh, however our spirit within had not yet been born or revealed if you like because it was very much in the dark because of those who had gone before us and decided to live in the darkness.
Hence the reason for baptizing came about. This too is why, in my view, he left the comforter to those who chose not to get baptized. To reveal the spirit within.
Although Jesus lived and breathed God people still doubted he was in and of God.
I didn’t say they were three Gods nor three persons or personhood. They are "one" manifested, in to what we understand as three. You as personhood me a different way all together.
It is clear our understanding of God differs and that is just the way it is till perception changes that for either or, or both.
Yes agree with you on your comments about evolution. Perhaps we started from our own litte mutation.
So if God did create all things, then He can't be a God of love. I mean what type of entity would create a situation where there is so much death, just for survival? For just for me to live daily, something, either a plant or animal has to die.
And why would a loving God create an animal and design it just to specifically kill another animal--as the anteater is to the ant? What kind of Grand psychopathic purpose is that?
I don't see any sense in a being creating all of this, and if there is, I would think that there certainly wouldn't be any reason to worship It...except maybe abject fear.I also fear the god that you describe. The Bible teaches that death came about as a result of the decision of man to sin or not obey God.
We call this the fall of man. Man and all animal life were originally vegetarians. It was only after the fall that all of this changed. And there will come a time when the results of the fall will be corrected when Jesus returns to claim his Kingdom.
To answer your question about plant life, it is a non-sentient life form. It has no reason, no feelings and I'm not sure why you object to eating it."Man and all animal life were originally vegetarians"
On your planet maybe - but on this one the big ones with teeth eat the little ones and always have since the first amoeba developed a taste for amoeba.My planet is the same as yours. Unless you are a visitor. In that case I would say, welcome to earth.
The Bible doesn'lt cover amoebas. I was referring to the sentient beings that we can observe on this planet, I can't speak for the trillions of microscopic creatures that roam our planet, but I can say that all of creation was affected by the fall and not just that which we can see.
I don't think eating flesh was mentioned in the Bible until after the flood, when God told Noah that he and his family could eat the birds and animals of the earth.
So why was Abel raising animals? Just for sacrificial offerings?
Perhaps. Maybe they used the wool, too, and the milk. The first evidence I know of where God told man it was okay to eat meat is Genesis 9:3.
Makes you realize what utter garbage the bible is doesn't it.
Mark, I don't think the Bible is garbage. I admit, the Old Testament confuses me, but I love the teachings of Jesus. I find His message inspiring and a good way to live one's life. I also believe the Bible contains mistakes because it was written by man.
Inspiring? As you wish.
"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades." Matthew 11:20
"Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." Matt 14:4
"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows." Luke 12:47
Niiice. Good stuff from Jesus here.
Yes, for all three purposes I would assume. But then, that blows GT's belief out of the water.
I don't see how this can blow anything out of the water. Man was originally vegeterian. The Fall happened in Genesis 3. The sacrifices of Cain and Abel in 4. The Sacrificial system was introduced by God in order to show the consequences of sin which is death and to be a picture of the ultimate sacrifice for sin, Jesus Christ.
Once again, I'm sorry you feel that way about the Bible. I have been reading it for years and the more I read it the more I see the beauty and the majesty of it . All 66 books were written over a period of 1500 years by about 40 different authors and yet it comes together to tell one story. The story of God's love for a world that had lost its way and is dying in sin.So why was Abel raising animals if they were vegetarians, GT?
vegetarians
animals were vegetarians, and still are. So why Abel was rising them, again?
just pulling your leg. oh shoot, snakes don't have legsWhy would vegetarian people raise animals if not for food?
To eat the grass maybe? They might not have had lawnmowers?
According to creationists, they had dinosaurs to do that! LOL!
Haha! Ok...rules out the grass theory..then doesn't it..mmmm
They used to have legs, it says so in the bible!
You're messin' with my head, Misha! LOL!LOL I hate it Randy! Every time I indulge on a joking spree with a person of a different culture, inevitably comes this blank moment that spoils the party. What is tail man?
A guy who is always chasing "tail" Misha! LOL!
I don't know. Were they? I heard from a reputable source under high secret Abel ate Kain? Or was it vice versa?
Maybe I'm not making myself clear. Genesis 1:29 states that God gave every plant and every fruit tree for food. Man was a vegetarian then. Then comes the fall. Adam and Eve sin. That sin leads to a separation from God and then he begins the process that ultimately leads to our redemption through Christ. God, in Genesis 3:20 slays animals and fashions the animal skins into clothing for Adam and Eve. That is the first record of an animal being slain for a sinful humanity. Then comes Genesis 4. That is Cain and Abel. Cain and Abel were most likely not vegetarians although that doesn't really matter since it was after the fall of man into sin. This finally leads to Genesis 9:1-5 in which God specifically gives instructions that man can eat meat.
well if meat is edible, then it was meant to be eaten all along. This story is nothing but trying to justify why animals eat each other & why humans eat animals.
Remember that the god in the bible was pleased by the stench of an animal killed for sacrifice (interesting how more ancient religions had sacrifice too).
I like animals, and I am against their slaughter for wasting as a sacrificeI guess I don't follow your logic that if meat is edible it was meant to be eaten all along. Humans are edible but God has always been against eating them.
I take it you are a vegetarian. I respect that choice, and I will not try to change your mind, but the bloody sacrificial system was meant to show the horrible consequences of man's rebellion against God.Yes. Eating humans is called canibalism. And once again, God is against it.
How do you know this?
Can you give us a big ole list of everything god is against please? Then we know how to behave. Am I allowed to change the internal components on my X-Box for example? Is it OK to have oral sex before marriage? What is the largest capacity of an internal combustion engine that god likes? Are turbo chargers acceptable or are they a sin against god? Is global warming due to humans or did god dunnit as punishment and wot can we do ter fix it? Or is it just a big business myth? The bible is not 100% clear on these and any number of other things.
Thanks.God is against eating swine...wait...now He changed His mind.
I won't get in to all of the nonsense you spouted, unless you really want to know if you can change the internal components of your X box. But to answer your question on canibalism God created man and woman in His image according to Genesis 1: 26 and 27. So man was a special creation of God.
In Genesis 9:6 God told Noah and his offspring: "Whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God He made man." God doesn't want us to kill each other so it follows logically that canibalism is eliminated.
I asked if we are edible? Who still does that?
Yeah we are edible...Ask anyone who has ever been attacked by an animal who wanted a snack...LOL...But humans eating humans...well that is on the wierd side if you ask me...but of course just my opinion...certain head hunters might disagree with me...
By the way God was pleased with the sacrifice because it was a demonstration of the offerers obedience to Him.
no, I'm not a vegetarian. I do find it yucky how everything eats everything else to survive
God tossed Adam & Eve out with the first mistake they did (what kind of parent would do that?) and punished the whole world with disease, meat-eating, birth defects, & is so angry he's threatened them all with hell unless they bow down and worship him.
Your god is a psychopath
And just why would God allow something like that? To me it makes absolutely no sense.
Speaking of outrageous lies. This is exactly the kind of outright lies spouted from believers. Just for your information, your bible has no authority. It is merely the writings of dubious psychotic authors, and is utterly absurd, so stop quoting it as if it is reality. This is madness.
Once again we have someone who has to result to insult and slander in order to make a point. Thanks for the information, but I'll keep my authority and you keep yours. By the way, what or who is your authority for these opinions?
I'm not sure how to take that. I asked you what your authority was for your opinions and you ask me: "Have you ever heard of reality?" My guess is that Science and the Scientific method are your authority. What I am suggesting is that Science is not infallible. Theories that were once thought to be true years ago are no longer believed to be valid. Could you at least entertain the notion that Science could be wrong here when it comes to Evolutionary Theory. And when you call the human authors of the Bible dubious and psychotic, you have no evidence. For instance what is dubious and psychotic about the moral teachings of the Judeo Christian world view that teaches us that all people have worth and value. What is dubious and psychotic about the myriads of verses that teach us to care for the widow, the poor and the orphan. What is dubious and psychotic about the Bible's teachings on loving one another.
I could go on and on but I believe that you get the point. I have worked in a mental health facility and I've never met a pschotic person who was capable or willing to write such things that so many thousands of people follow today for the betterment of themselves and the society in which they live.Simply put, my opinions are based in reality, while yours are based in pure superstitious nonsense. But I see you are trying to pretend that you don't understand.
Let's leave evolution and the scientific method out of the equation, and your opinions are still absurd.
Yes, I can do that, but it certainly makes a lot more sense than Goddunnit, which is the ludicrous opinion you are asserting.
1.Dubious=adj~~questionable or suspect
2.psychosis=n~~a loss of contact with reality, usually including false ideas about what is taking place or who one is (delusions) and seeing or hearing things that aren't there (hallucinations)
You are not allowed to pick and choose which parts of the bible that suits your delusion.
WHAT ABOUT THIS:
God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
This is clearly from the mind of a psychotic--and we don't know who actually authored this nonsense--hence DUBIOUS PSYCHOTIC.
Yes I get the point that you are creating a smoke screen.
Why does your God require such clever deception on His behalf?What you fail to acknowledge is that God just didn't arbitrarily destroy whole societies just because he felt like it. The Casnanite societies for instance were evil beyond description and did such atrocities that some people who have researched them don't even want to put into writing what they did. The destruction of the societies in the Old Testament were a result of years of these societies turning their backs on the one true God and following their own lusts. This lead to perversions that God judged.
So why would your God give these wretched human beings free-will? Being omniscient, he knew that he would just have to come back later and destroy them. God should have done the right thing, and suspended free-will. Of course, conveniently, when we get to heaven, we will be incapable of sinning. Do you realize how absurd this is?
Your God is a very disturbing, and evil creation, indeed.getitrite, Sorry, but you don't have authority to tell God what he should do. God is fully aware of what he is doing and he has done the right thing. God can never do anything wrong. Love and Blessings to you.
Who gave you authority to speak for god, WOC?
Well when God, or anyone, doesn't make sense, we just can't give Him Carte Blanche. If so, there is no telling what He would try to pull next. Look how long it took for him to stop human and animal sacrifices, and it wasn't until someone complained about it.
Not to mention all of those he murdered when he had to make a do-over. The flood, I mean!
You seriously believe God did that? It was a natural event. Which in a sense is part of Gods process I guess.
Of course not. There is not enough water to cover the earth. Where do you think the water drained off to if it did?
just wait a while - when the religious fashion turns to appeasement they will start to deny the flood - which will nicely get around the fact THAT THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE.
Oh so you are asking for evidence of the flood? Are you for real? We had a flood here some time back and I cannot produce that evidence to you.
OK - so a flood that encomapssed the whole world left no evidence?
What about jesus? such a central and important figure must have left some trace of being here - other than in the novel of a fictional character?The whole world to them was flat. The whole world to them was their country. New Zealand did not experience the flood.
Do you mean a birth certificate or preserved bones...DNA?
You would think that just suspending free-will would have been a lot less messy, a lot more just, and a lot more humane, than destroying the whole population, uncluding animals, by callously drowning them. God, clearly, doesn't seem to think logically, but He is quick to judge, then, murder.
That is only if you understand God in the traditional sense.
Sorry, but the rest of us are not on the advanced plane that you and some others are. We are of meager understanding.
I have yet to really understand just what it is that you or James actually believe, and not really sure if you can expalin it in a way that could really be understood.
Once again, you have read partial parts of the bible. I kindly encourage to read full passages or chapter for full understanding.
Regarding the dubious and psychotic definitions, thanks. I still can't see that the authors were either of these things.
To prove that you would have to prove that the God of the Bible doesn't exist and that He didn't communicate with and through these men as the Bible teaches. You might want to search the biblical record in a Scientific way and try to prove your theories.Of course you can't see the truth. That would destroy your delusion, and you would have to become honest.
It's not about proofing your beliefs at this point--because as long as believers can use this, they will hang on to it for dear life.
When it comes to deciding what to believe, if we did not assume such "unprovables" were false, we would either have to choose which unprovables to believe by some totally arbitrary means, which amounts to a ridiculous "belief by whim" method, or else we have to assume that all such statements are true.
GodTalk, This is the correct information I read in the bible also.
and you could be wrong about your belief in God - how do you know it's not just your own voice in your head?
so, are you like 2/3 of pastors that believe the mentally ill are possessed?
you are wrong in your claims about the fossil record & you wrongly assume evolution is about origins of life, which indicates you know nothing at all about what evolution really is
- lynnechandlerposted 14 years ago0
Hi Randy,
Been a while and good to see not much has changed just some of the players.
Missed you!
LynneHey Lynne! Good to hear from you, hope you are doing well. Yep, same ole, same ole! LOL!
Yes, it seems that the same old stuff is being spouted on both sides without anyone learning from the other. Just stuff like your post making fun of what you will not understand. Reality may be bigger than what you can measure under a microscope. Or do you think you are omnicient?
You know I don't know you nor do you know me. I've been around a while and I'm old enough to know what reality is and what it isn't. I also know that I am not all knowing as you suggest. All I was doing was saying hi to an old friend and was not in any way making fun of the thread or what had been said here. I understand a whole lot better than you that neither side is going to give in this argument because everyone including myself is entitled to their own opinion.
I really don't appreciate your insinuations in the least bit. You haven't been here long enough or made enough friends to be judging anyone, least of all me.I didn't mean to offend anyone. And you are right that no one will win this argument . My intention is not to try but you must admit I wasn't the one who posted this forum about "Why Christians tell outrageous lies about evolution." The whole premise is asking for an argument. I don't want to win, I merely want to see that Christianity is treated fairly. With that said, I won't talk with you again unless you ask.
I started this thread, as I noticed some hubs by christians attacking evolution, and they didn't even have their facts straight about evolution. They invented quotes by Darwin & claimed Darwin was responsible for the holocaust.
They claim there is zero evidence for evolution & twist quotes to fit their warped perceptionsIt doesn't matter what people claim. Doesn't alter the way it works.
you say christians attack evolution,no not at all they attack the lies that come out of evolution and there humanist religion,and the list is very long.
- lynnechandlerposted 14 years ago0
I'm doing really good though I wish this soreness and stiffness would go away but other than that good. I would comment here but I kinda went off in the heaven and hell thread so best just lurk here for now.
Glad you are doing better! Wasting time here, GodTalk ain't talking to me, apparently!
Wrong person, Randy. You need to talk to his wife
I'm sorry, I must have missed one of your replies to me, but if there is something than needs to be answered I'll look for it.
Related Discussions
- 152
Creation v Evolution - The Objective View
by fallenangel666 14 years ago
I do not pigeon hole myself as a Creationist, Agnostic or Atheist, but rather as a person who attempts to retain an open mind. Any talk of proof either way is simply delusional. Kurt Godel, the greatest logician who ever lived, prooved beyond doubt, within the strict boundaries of mechanistic...
- 17
Why do you think people still argue again evolution?
by Nathaniel Zhu 11 years ago
Why do you think people still argue again evolution?Seriously. This is the 21st century. I'm thinking they're in denial because it's against their religion - or they're just ignorant. What do you think?
- 19
Is it possible to believe in both Creation and Microevolution?
by Jacqui 12 years ago
Is it possible to believe in both Creation and Microevolution?A comment on another question sparked this. Those who believe in Creation often scoff at the idea of Evolution eg we can't be descended from Apes etc..Adam and Eve etc. Yet, someone answered with the idea that they believed in...
- 23
Does this image prove - beyond all doubt - that God does not exist and that the
by peterxdunn 11 years ago
Does this image prove - beyond all doubt - that God does not exist and that the Bible story...cannot be true?Look very carefully at this picture. It was taken by the Hubble Space Telescope (a true miracle of the modern age). The light from some of the galaxies shown here has been travelling through...
- 155
Why do people insist on attacking Christianity?
by Mmargie1966 13 years ago
I am a Christian, and an American. I believe in the freedom to believe in anything you choose to (or not). What I don't understand is why Christianity is under attack.I don't necessarily believe in everything the "Church" teaches, but I don't bash other religions, and frankly,...
- 5
Is the Darwin's theory of evolution really against what is in the Bible?
by Nomascus concolor 9 years ago
Is the Darwin's theory of evolution really against what is in the Bible?Is there room for interpretation regarding Adam and Eve and the creation of the world or is it very literal to you?