You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Test those Christians
- Thread starter audible
- Start date
W
what768
Guest
southstar said:Could you stop with the inane comments and just respond to my comments? I don't recall ever attacking you or even belittling you so I would expect the same respect.
He didn't say that to you. He was answering someone else
Yeah, Im sorry if it looked like i pointed it at you South Star. Some other people were making rediculous remarks and where ignorant of what I believe.
I am F AQ2: Well the Bible is a collection of historical documentation. I use it to reference certain pasts. By what i mean is:
Why would Gabriel tell Mary that she is the mother of the messiah, but later tell Mohammad(spelling?) that Jesus and all previous others are nothing but prophets. Now this is logical and doesnt "prove" anything. It just doesnt give me any interest in "trusting" islam.
Being beyond reality is described, by me, and experiencing a "world" beyond what we can sense. This can usually be confirmed with the inability to describe what happened. We define our world with sight touch, etc. But we cannot describe beyond that. Like for example "being in Gods sight" or "Seeing God". God is always around us but we cannot sense him because he is beyond our senses. Simular to the Wind. You can not see the wind. You can see the effects of the wind, but not the wind itself.
In my ressurection I stood before God. Im looking right at his face. He speaks to me. I cannot describe his voice, but i wrote whatever he said at that time ( I believe that to be a vision because I do not have the paper) I then see myself (confirming that this is a vision or an out of body experience). Sometimes you hear about "spritual eyes". Like there was a man riding his donkey, i believe he was a prophet. Apparently God did not want him to get to where he was going so he sent his angel. Now the Man could not see the angel because it is beyond our senses. But God opened the senses to the Donkey and it knew the angel was there.
The Donkey knew what was going on and began to turn. The man struck the donkey. this happened several times. Eventually God opened the Donkey's mouth allowing it to speak. It asked him "Why did you hit me" or something like that. The man eventually came to realize that the angel was right in front of him he could sense it too. This is an example of two things. There are things in this reality and things beyond this reality that happen all the time without us knowing. The second thing is God's ability to bend the rules and make things even proven wrong, right. (this was done by making the donkey speak, because even if it could speak, it couldn't know our language or have the vocal cords to even pronounce anything in our tounge.)
Edit:
In response about why I believe Judism is corrupted.
This is my referense to the past:
Matthew 21:
"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to coolect his fruit.
The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants threated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son ot them. 'They will respect my son,' he said.
But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, "this is the heir, Come, lets kill him and take his inheritance; So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?
"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,' they replied, "and he will rent hte vineyard to other tenants, who will give his share of hte crop at harvest time.
Jesus said to them, 'Have you never read in the Scriptures:
' the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes?' {Psalms 118:22,23}
"Therefore I tell you that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to the people who wil produce its fruit. He who falls on the stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about htem. They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet."
Sorry thats a long one. But its the Teachers of their law have brought them to where they are. Just the same as the teachers of the law during Jesus' time. that flock will be broken just the same.
As for people being ignorant of the truth. Jesus calls us the sheep and he is the shepard. The lost sheep was supposed to be a gentile (non believer) and he would bring them back into his flock. But being in his flock doesnt change the fact that we are sheep. I dont know if you know this, but sheep are stupid. There are a great many things even Christians do not know. this is only revealed by God to certain people. This does not condemn people who dont know nor bring any better prestiege to those who do know...
I am F AQ2: Well the Bible is a collection of historical documentation. I use it to reference certain pasts. By what i mean is:
Why would Gabriel tell Mary that she is the mother of the messiah, but later tell Mohammad(spelling?) that Jesus and all previous others are nothing but prophets. Now this is logical and doesnt "prove" anything. It just doesnt give me any interest in "trusting" islam.
Being beyond reality is described, by me, and experiencing a "world" beyond what we can sense. This can usually be confirmed with the inability to describe what happened. We define our world with sight touch, etc. But we cannot describe beyond that. Like for example "being in Gods sight" or "Seeing God". God is always around us but we cannot sense him because he is beyond our senses. Simular to the Wind. You can not see the wind. You can see the effects of the wind, but not the wind itself.
In my ressurection I stood before God. Im looking right at his face. He speaks to me. I cannot describe his voice, but i wrote whatever he said at that time ( I believe that to be a vision because I do not have the paper) I then see myself (confirming that this is a vision or an out of body experience). Sometimes you hear about "spritual eyes". Like there was a man riding his donkey, i believe he was a prophet. Apparently God did not want him to get to where he was going so he sent his angel. Now the Man could not see the angel because it is beyond our senses. But God opened the senses to the Donkey and it knew the angel was there.
The Donkey knew what was going on and began to turn. The man struck the donkey. this happened several times. Eventually God opened the Donkey's mouth allowing it to speak. It asked him "Why did you hit me" or something like that. The man eventually came to realize that the angel was right in front of him he could sense it too. This is an example of two things. There are things in this reality and things beyond this reality that happen all the time without us knowing. The second thing is God's ability to bend the rules and make things even proven wrong, right. (this was done by making the donkey speak, because even if it could speak, it couldn't know our language or have the vocal cords to even pronounce anything in our tounge.)
Edit:
In response about why I believe Judism is corrupted.
This is my referense to the past:
Matthew 21:
"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to coolect his fruit.
The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants threated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son ot them. 'They will respect my son,' he said.
But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, "this is the heir, Come, lets kill him and take his inheritance; So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?
"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,' they replied, "and he will rent hte vineyard to other tenants, who will give his share of hte crop at harvest time.
Jesus said to them, 'Have you never read in the Scriptures:
' the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes?' {Psalms 118:22,23}
"Therefore I tell you that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to the people who wil produce its fruit. He who falls on the stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about htem. They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet."
Sorry thats a long one. But its the Teachers of their law have brought them to where they are. Just the same as the teachers of the law during Jesus' time. that flock will be broken just the same.
As for people being ignorant of the truth. Jesus calls us the sheep and he is the shepard. The lost sheep was supposed to be a gentile (non believer) and he would bring them back into his flock. But being in his flock doesnt change the fact that we are sheep. I dont know if you know this, but sheep are stupid. There are a great many things even Christians do not know. this is only revealed by God to certain people. This does not condemn people who dont know nor bring any better prestiege to those who do know...
Last edited:
Well, in two thousand years Christianity has become no less corrupted than you claim Judaism to have been. And in claiming Judaism to have been corrupted, you are ignoring the two thousand years of history since that time. When Jesus was criticising the scriptures, they'd only been finalised for about two to three hundred years. The absolutely final version (the Masoretic text) of the Hebrew Bible wasn't nailed down for another thousand years - although that still makes it more than half a millennium older than the King James Bible that most English speaking Christians think is the "real" Bible!
Judaism today more or less splits up into Orthodox and Reform, with lesser divisions such as Conservative and Reconstructionist. How many differing sects does Christianity offer up in the United States alone? (That's a trick question, the vast majority of subsects of Christianity only occur in the United States, the rest of the world makes do with Catholicism, a fairly uniform Lutheranism and the Orthodox Church).
Islam strikes me as being the least corrupted. Compare the Five Pillars of Islam with the Ten Commandments. The 5 Pillars are the duties performed by Muslims, and they are: to acknowedge that Allah is the one true God and Mohammed is his prophet; to pray five times a day; to pay a tithe of their income to the poor; to observe the fast during the month of Ramadan; and to go on the Hajj, the pilgramage to Mecca. The number of even relatively secular Muslims who rigorously perform these rites is far larger, proportionately, than those Christians who are able to maintain the 10 Commandments as opposed to casually violatiing one or other of them every day.
Personally I am against the spirit of this thread, however humorously intended. It's no good attacking a reading of the Bible or their belief in it. But many fundies believe, apparently, in the total damnation of everybody that doesn't agree with them, so my thing would be to ask them carefully to consider their image of God and ask if such a vain, bitter, unfair and fundamentally hatred-derived God is really worthy of worship.
Judaism today more or less splits up into Orthodox and Reform, with lesser divisions such as Conservative and Reconstructionist. How many differing sects does Christianity offer up in the United States alone? (That's a trick question, the vast majority of subsects of Christianity only occur in the United States, the rest of the world makes do with Catholicism, a fairly uniform Lutheranism and the Orthodox Church).
Islam strikes me as being the least corrupted. Compare the Five Pillars of Islam with the Ten Commandments. The 5 Pillars are the duties performed by Muslims, and they are: to acknowedge that Allah is the one true God and Mohammed is his prophet; to pray five times a day; to pay a tithe of their income to the poor; to observe the fast during the month of Ramadan; and to go on the Hajj, the pilgramage to Mecca. The number of even relatively secular Muslims who rigorously perform these rites is far larger, proportionately, than those Christians who are able to maintain the 10 Commandments as opposed to casually violatiing one or other of them every day.
Personally I am against the spirit of this thread, however humorously intended. It's no good attacking a reading of the Bible or their belief in it. But many fundies believe, apparently, in the total damnation of everybody that doesn't agree with them, so my thing would be to ask them carefully to consider their image of God and ask if such a vain, bitter, unfair and fundamentally hatred-derived God is really worthy of worship.
I dont see anything wrong with the people of Judaism. I just see within the past even before jesus, that their teachers constantly make the same faults and when a prophet comes in God's name to cleans them and lead the people they kill him. This has happend for thousands of years. now the past 2 thousand years this hasnt happened on as large scale as before. Since God, apparently, doesnt feel the need to send any prophets again. (At least not now that his son has come). So their leaders may yet be helping them get back to where they sould be, but that only covers up the scar that the past has made. There will be no way of removing that.
the rest of your post i pretty much agree there...
the rest of your post i pretty much agree there...
audible,
The problem with your arguments of course is the assumption that Christians must prove there is a God. This is not even close to true. God does not need any man to prove his existance. God's existence does not depend upon anyone's belief - or disbelief. If you do not believe, that is your loss, not God's. Thinking that you are hurting God by not believing is akin to thinking you are hurting a celebrity by not asking for their autograph, or thinking you are hurting Saddam by going on a hunger strike? Power to you - go ahead - if you reject God's free gift then you are hurting yourself and while it may make Him a little sad, He (and the rest of us) will get over it - will you?
Christian belief is that man must seek God, God does not seek man. Jesus graciously came with a one-time God-given offer, take it or leave it.
God, for some unclear reason, has choosen the foolishness of preaching to spread the knowledge of His offer. God does not seem to be very impressed with our human wisdom or logic. Preaching has nothing to do with proving there is a God. Preaching is only for pointing, those who are seeking already, toward God - nothing else. If you stubbornly believe in something else then even if God himself ascended in a fiery chariot you will still not believe.
Many believe in God because of what they are taught. Still others believe because of some personal experience. My beliefs cannot be shaken by your arguments because my beliefs are not based upon arguments - no course in logic needed here.
At the same time, your so-called logic is predicated upon the rejection of the very things I rely on as evidence - the well-ordered world around us, the prefection and beauty of our very existance. You believe in an even more incredible fantasy than I do - random chance (if you were really educated you would already know that chance and mutation fail when subjected to any real scientific test) - yet you believe it anyway. Just like my beliefs, your's cannot be shaken by any argument.
It is only those who seek which are susceptable to learning the truth. Ask and it will be given, seek and you shall find, knock and it will be opened to you.
The problem with your arguments of course is the assumption that Christians must prove there is a God. This is not even close to true. God does not need any man to prove his existance. God's existence does not depend upon anyone's belief - or disbelief. If you do not believe, that is your loss, not God's. Thinking that you are hurting God by not believing is akin to thinking you are hurting a celebrity by not asking for their autograph, or thinking you are hurting Saddam by going on a hunger strike? Power to you - go ahead - if you reject God's free gift then you are hurting yourself and while it may make Him a little sad, He (and the rest of us) will get over it - will you?
Christian belief is that man must seek God, God does not seek man. Jesus graciously came with a one-time God-given offer, take it or leave it.
God, for some unclear reason, has choosen the foolishness of preaching to spread the knowledge of His offer. God does not seem to be very impressed with our human wisdom or logic. Preaching has nothing to do with proving there is a God. Preaching is only for pointing, those who are seeking already, toward God - nothing else. If you stubbornly believe in something else then even if God himself ascended in a fiery chariot you will still not believe.
Many believe in God because of what they are taught. Still others believe because of some personal experience. My beliefs cannot be shaken by your arguments because my beliefs are not based upon arguments - no course in logic needed here.
At the same time, your so-called logic is predicated upon the rejection of the very things I rely on as evidence - the well-ordered world around us, the prefection and beauty of our very existance. You believe in an even more incredible fantasy than I do - random chance (if you were really educated you would already know that chance and mutation fail when subjected to any real scientific test) - yet you believe it anyway. Just like my beliefs, your's cannot be shaken by any argument.
It is only those who seek which are susceptable to learning the truth. Ask and it will be given, seek and you shall find, knock and it will be opened to you.
then firstly why are you debating, secondly you are quite clearly the delusional one ,as you have the fantasy figure, the sky daddy, you are the sheep, you are it's flock (if it existed).David F. said:audible,
God does not need any man to prove his existance. God's existence does not depend upon anyone's belief - or disbelief.
absolutely nothing you could ever say, could be taken seriously, nothing reasonable, could come out of you mouth, you are tainted by blind faith.
audible said:then firstly why are you debating, secondly you are quite clearly the delusional one ,as you have the fantasy figure, the sky daddy, you are the sheep, you are it's flock (if it existed).
absolutely nothing you could ever say, could be taken seriously, nothing reasonable, could come out of you mouth, you are tainted by blind faith.
Bravo! Do you see? This is exactly how a thiest (like me) sees you! Your very thoughts betray you. Anyone who naively believes they know enough to absolutely rule out the existance of someone or something bigger and better than themselves, absolutely assures the rest of us that there can be nothing but total self-absorbing self-righteousness in that tiny brain. Thus nothing you can ever say is worth the effort to even listen to. Is this you?
TheMatrixIsReal said:The really sad part about these kind of people is they go through life completely deluding themselves into thinking they're special and going to a special place when in reality the most useful thing they do is provide food for hungry worms. That's going to be my new slogan:
Why does evolution allow stupid people? To feed the worms of course!
I have long studied this fantasy called evolution and I am now sure that only the deluded could possibly still cling to that totally discredited philosophy mascarading as science. Survival of the fittest is of course true, and even the splitting of the species does occur, but the evolution of the cell? Reptiles becoming Mammals? Sprouting wings from nothing? Even the evolutionists no longer believe their own tripe.
For the last few years, the evolotionists have actually been admitting that the cell cannot evolve and that DNA is far to complicated to have come about by chance. What is their stance now? Why, the Earth must have been seeded by aliens! (I'm really not making this up). Try reading the book "Darwin's Black Box" by the evolutionist-microbiologist Michael Behe (he doesn't believe in creationism). This is nothing new, and it has been available for years.
I do not pretend to say that the fall of evolutionary theory necessitates the rise of creationism, they are mutually exclusive, but not interdependant. Until something much better comes along, I choose to believe in a Creator. You may not, but please get off that dead horse called evolution.
I agree. Although we do "evolve" i cannot see for what reason a perficly normal single cell orginism could ever possible NEED to replicate into a multicellular lifeform. Its illogical given the nature of all creatures, excluding us.
Only a form of parasite would do such a thing, but that is an opinion.
Only a form of parasite would do such a thing, but that is an opinion.
Accually there is nothing that says what God used to create this world. It is only assumed that there was nothing, because God had to create everything. Its is "possible" that "matter" existed along with God, which rises to the belief there are other universes and that God is just a person from a species.
But overall it is irrelavent to the fact that God did "create/shape" this world. And wether he made "every" piece himself or used already existing elements to shape the world does not change the fact that God made this universe. I wont gripe at your comment since it is opinion and everyone is gonna have one...nothing wrong with an opinion.
But overall it is irrelavent to the fact that God did "create/shape" this world. And wether he made "every" piece himself or used already existing elements to shape the world does not change the fact that God made this universe. I wont gripe at your comment since it is opinion and everyone is gonna have one...nothing wrong with an opinion.
camphlps said:In my ressurection I stood before God. Im looking right at his face. He speaks to me. I cannot describe his voice, but i wrote whatever he said at that time ( I believe that to be a vision because I do not have the paper) I then see myself (confirming that this is a vision or an out of body experience). Sometimes you hear about "spritual eyes". Like there was a man riding his donkey, i believe he was a prophet. Apparently God did not want him to get to where he was going so he sent his angel. Now the Man could not see the angel because it is beyond our senses. But God opened the senses to the Donkey and it knew the angel was there.
The Donkey knew what was going on and began to turn. The man struck the donkey. this happened several times. Eventually God opened the Donkey's mouth allowing it to speak. It asked him "Why did you hit me" or something like that. The man eventually came to realize that the angel was right in front of him he could sense it too. This is an example of two things. There are things in this reality and things beyond this reality that happen all the time without us knowing. The second thing is God's ability to bend the rules and make things even proven wrong, right. (this was done by making the donkey speak, because even if it could speak, it couldn't know our language or have the vocal cords to even pronounce anything in our tounge.)
Wow . . . ya have very vivid dreams! That or a vivid imagination.
This dream or fantasy or whatever-it-is proves nothing. What if I dreamed/fantasized/whatever-it-ised that I was talking to Woden (a.k.a Odin) and he told me about Ragnarok and how it would go down? Does my dream/fantasy/whatever-it-is prove the ancient Norse religion right? No more and no less than yer dream/fantasy/whatever-it-is proves the Christian religion right.
you've chosen words like fantasy, deluded, well you should be quite used to them.David F. said:I have long studied this fantasy called evolution and I am now sure that only the deluded could possibly still cling to that totally discredited philosophy mascarading as science. Survival of the fittest is of course true, and even the splitting of the species does occur, but the evolution of the cell? Reptiles becoming Mammals? Sprouting wings from nothing? Even the evolutionists no longer believe their own tripe.
For the last few years, the evolotionists have actually been admitting that the cell cannot evolve and that DNA is far to complicated to have come about by chance. What is their stance now? Why, the Earth must have been seeded by aliens! (I'm really not making this up). Try reading the book "Darwin's Black Box" by the evolutionist-microbiologist Michael Behe (he doesn't believe in creationism). This is nothing new, and it has been available for years.
I do not pretend to say that the fall of evolutionary theory necessitates the rise of creationism, they are mutually exclusive, but not interdependant. Until something much better comes along, I choose to believe in a Creator. You may not, but please get off that dead horse called evolution.
but they dont pertain to evolution, only creation, and yes you are really making it up, you are having a laugh, if you think anybody, will take what you say as serious.
If the energy of the Big Bang were changed even by one part in 10^120, life could not exist.
All 34 animal phyla were created 535 million years ago, within five million years period.
the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that there is no way everything could have been created as it is today, 6,000 years ago.
You can lead a fundie to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think."
Last edited:
Ah-huh, ah-hah, huh, a-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!David F. said:I have long studied this fantasy called evolution and I am now sure that only the deluded could possibly still cling to that totally discredited philosophy mascarading as science. Survival of the fittest is of course true, and even the splitting of the species does occur, but the evolution of the cell? Reptiles becoming Mammals? Sprouting wings from nothing? Even the evolutionists no longer believe their own tripe.
For the last few years, the evolotionists have actually been admitting that the cell cannot evolve and that DNA is far to complicated to have come about by chance. What is their stance now? Why, the Earth must have been seeded by aliens! (I'm really not making this up). Try reading the book "Darwin's Black Box" by the evolutionist-microbiologist Michael Behe (he doesn't believe in creationism). This is nothing new, and it has been available for years.
I do not pretend to say that the fall of evolutionary theory necessitates the rise of creationism, they are mutually exclusive, but not interdependant. Until something much better comes along, I choose to believe in a Creator. You may not, but please get off that dead horse called evolution.
Reptiles are defined by exclusion. They frequently described as "all the amniotes except the synapsid/mammal lineage. Originally all amniotes were smooth-skinned cold blooded creatures. Some developed into warm-blooded creatures. Some of those developed hair for temperature maintenance (one of the two signs of mammalia). A lot of reptiles exude oils on their skin. I can see a direct evolutionary line between exuding oils for skin maintenance and lubrication, to exuding fatty oils for infant nutrition, to evolving glands for the nutritional fats to be stored in, to breasts with nipples emitting milk (the other sign of mammalia).I have long studied this fantasy called evolution and I am now sure that only the deluded could possibly still cling to that totally discredited philosophy mascarading as science. Survival of the fittest is of course true, and even the splitting of the species does occur, but the evolution of the cell? Reptiles becoming Mammals? Sprouting wings from nothing? Even the evolutionists no longer believe their own tripe.
Sprouting wings from nothing? Did you ever notice that winged creatures are also two legged creatures? Yes, wings are of course the forearms of the ancient creatures that developed wings (this is patently obvious in bats), and like flying foxes today, they probably started as cooling areas which then aided gliding.
Your incredulity about evolution stems from nothing more or less than pure, blind ignorance. Evolution is a fact. Visit a museum and be shown how various artefacts in any modern creature can be seen in primitive forms in extinct creatures. Modern evolutionary study is based on genetics. We can recognise long chains of genes that have not changed in hundreds of millions of years, as well as genes that have evolved out of all recognition. Geneticists nowadays talk of "mutation hotspots" and of known rates of mutation.
So one guy finds difficulty in explaining the evolution of the cell, this becomes "evolutionists have been admitting that the cell cannot evolve". One so-called "evolutionist" has written a book on this matter, that does not mean that Behe's theories are widely accepted by the scientific establishment or that Behe is remotely taken seriously. Behe's ideas basically rest on the concept that something is too complex to have evolved naturally so "God must have done it". However, this is simply chucking in the scientific towel, and the rest of biological science is not that willing to give up. Maybe we haven't found the mechanism, but we aren't going to stop trying because one man is busy trying to justify his faith in God.For the last few years, the evolotionists have actually been admitting that the cell cannot evolve and that DNA is far to complicated to have come about by chance. What is their stance now? Why, the Earth must have been seeded by aliens! (I'm really not making this up). Try reading the book "Darwin's Black Box" by the evolutionist-microbiologist Michael Behe (he doesn't believe in creationism). This is nothing new, and it has been available for years.
There is no such thing as "evolutionists", other than those people who have very public debates with Creationists. In the real world, where real scientists are solving real problems that have a significant relevance to the world today (genetics, cloning or simply finding a DNA-level cure for, say, cancer or HIV) evolution is a simple matter of fact, without which they would not be able to carry on their jobs and contribute to mankind. They are evolutionists by default, if you will.
You disbelieve in evolution but you believe in "survival of the fittest"? You're supposed to denigrate Darwin's Theory of evolution (which after all is what deprives mankind of his special purpose for God, or indeed any real meaning to life), not evolution itself, which is a thoroughly attested fact that was originally (pre-Darwin) espoused by theists.
People who don't believe in evolution have to believe that God went to all the trouble of creating every single one of billions of different creatures. Personally I think God was smarter than that, and invented evolution to save him all the trouble. Or I would if I believed in God - and there are many theists among the scientific community.
I did not at all say "God must have done it". The failure of evolution does not in any way imply the acceptance of Creationism.
The Survival of the fittest is of course true - no one ever said it wasn't. Evolution is a very broad topic containing much truth and much falsehood.
Let's start by splitting evolution into its two parts - Macro and Microevolution. Microevolution is what used to be call adaptation and no one has ever disputed this idea. Of course people and animals change to best adapt to their environment - survival of the fittest.
The question though is, does this adaptation extend to pre-programmed changes or to the addition of new changes? One race of man might develop extra fat around their eyes to protect from the cold, causing them to squint or become "slant eyed". Was this a pre-programmed DNA response which was brought out by conditions (those without it died before they could procreate) or was this brought about by mutations? Some things truly are mutations (take blue eyes for example) while others are simply variations around a mean. No one disputes that there are variations from one man to the next, or from one dog to the next, or from one fish to the next. The evolution debate comes when scientists try to extend that variation along a trend line. The available evidence suggests that variations too far from the mean in a species causes death while macro-evolution absolutely depends upon the survival of a specimen which varies far from the mean.
Can you understand the difference between variations about a mean and variations along a trend line? All evidence I have ever seen suggests the later is not possible (fatal). Species delineation occurs when one group falls far right of the mean and another group falls far left of the mean - still variations about the mean but far enough away from each other so not to be able to breed. Darwin based his theory on known fact, but then extrapolated to an untruth. A + B equals C, but A + B might not lead to X.
Do you have any knowledge of statistics? Evolutionists use math (statistics) to reach a false conclusion. Evolutionists say anything that can happen will eventually happen. This is simply not true. Just because you can place a probability on an event, does not mean that event will eventually happen. Some things are truly impossible (I think most statisticians say anything less likely than 1 in 10 to the 70 is really zero - I think they are being over generous).
I find it highly amusing that someone would make the argument that "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be ignorant". When you are loosing the argument, use personal attacks - really smart.
The Survival of the fittest is of course true - no one ever said it wasn't. Evolution is a very broad topic containing much truth and much falsehood.
Let's start by splitting evolution into its two parts - Macro and Microevolution. Microevolution is what used to be call adaptation and no one has ever disputed this idea. Of course people and animals change to best adapt to their environment - survival of the fittest.
The question though is, does this adaptation extend to pre-programmed changes or to the addition of new changes? One race of man might develop extra fat around their eyes to protect from the cold, causing them to squint or become "slant eyed". Was this a pre-programmed DNA response which was brought out by conditions (those without it died before they could procreate) or was this brought about by mutations? Some things truly are mutations (take blue eyes for example) while others are simply variations around a mean. No one disputes that there are variations from one man to the next, or from one dog to the next, or from one fish to the next. The evolution debate comes when scientists try to extend that variation along a trend line. The available evidence suggests that variations too far from the mean in a species causes death while macro-evolution absolutely depends upon the survival of a specimen which varies far from the mean.
Can you understand the difference between variations about a mean and variations along a trend line? All evidence I have ever seen suggests the later is not possible (fatal). Species delineation occurs when one group falls far right of the mean and another group falls far left of the mean - still variations about the mean but far enough away from each other so not to be able to breed. Darwin based his theory on known fact, but then extrapolated to an untruth. A + B equals C, but A + B might not lead to X.
Do you have any knowledge of statistics? Evolutionists use math (statistics) to reach a false conclusion. Evolutionists say anything that can happen will eventually happen. This is simply not true. Just because you can place a probability on an event, does not mean that event will eventually happen. Some things are truly impossible (I think most statisticians say anything less likely than 1 in 10 to the 70 is really zero - I think they are being over generous).
I find it highly amusing that someone would make the argument that "anyone who doesn't agree with me must be ignorant". When you are loosing the argument, use personal attacks - really smart.
TheMatrixIsReal said:Point to a better theory based on evidence and I'll take a look at it.
You see, this is the problem. Evolutionists know their theory is seriously flawed, but they don't have anything better and they don't want to fall back on creation. Most who blindly cling to evolution do so because they can't bare the thought of giving in to the theists. They don't have to. It is OK to simply say we don't know. While there is some evidence that something dramatic happened 6-10 thousand years ago, I surely do not see enough evidence to proclaim creation as the absolute victor (I suspect creation is true but I won't try to proclaim that to the world - I simply don't know for sure). However, cellular evolution is just silly so I can certainly proclaim that as false.
Go ahead, just say we don't know!
TheMatrixIsReal said:That's easy to explain preacher, you see when god created the world 6,000 years ago, he made it look like it was created in a Big Bang and that Evolution takes place just to test all of the non believers who are foolish enough to use the brains he supposedly gave them, instead of 'doing god's will' by being a brainless idiot who cops out by saying "god did it".
Who said God created the world 6,000 years ago? Not the bible!
The bible story is about an Earth that already exists. The six days are the report of God's taraforming activities and the creation of life. The "let there be light" is in the analogy of pulling back a curtain (of clouds?) to let in the light. The story is told from the point of view of someone on the surface of the Earth. It starts with the Earth as a hunk of rock and water. If you will go and read the story yourself, you will find that the Heavens and the Earth already existed prior to the Genesis story - no one knows for how long (a minute? a millenium? 6 billion years? - the bible does not say, so neither will I).