God... Christ... The Bible

EddieLedBetter

MichaelMcKevin wrote:

I sometimes still can't believe Christianity exists despite all the evidence to dispute it. Or that some people make it so far in their personal education and still latch onto it...

i'd like to hear evidence that disputes it. I can't believe macroevolution still exists dispite the evidence to dispute it.

Strange the bible says in the end times people will stray from the faith

gimmesometruth27

wow this thread is still going?? there is a lot of good opinions and debate in it, i think i said my peace 20 pages ago lol...

i have never seen a 43 page pissing match before...

i am thinking it will eventually catch up with the song thread..

catefrances

EddieLedBetter wrote:

MichaelMcKevin wrote:

I sometimes still can't believe Christianity exists despite all the evidence to dispute it. Or that some people make it so far in their personal education and still latch onto it...

i'd like to hear evidence that disputes it. I can't believe macroevolution still exists dispite the evidence to dispute it.

Strange the bible says in the end times people will stray from the faith

with a collection of stories so illogical and difficult to believe thats hardly surprising now is it???

Gern Blansten

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Wouldnt it be easy if he just came right out and said there is a God and I am Him?

yes...it would be easy and it would be logical

If a loving god wants you to follow him so that you can be "saved" then he would make his presence known by ALL....not just those that happen to be born into christian homes

Funny that's what Jesus did and this is why so many people over so many generations continue to follow him

yet millions of people don't believe it....what an efficient god!!

PRAISE!!!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

EddieLedBetter wrote:

MichaelMcKevin wrote:

I sometimes still can't believe Christianity exists despite all the evidence to dispute it. Or that some people make it so far in their personal education and still latch onto it...

i'd like to hear evidence that disputes it. I can't believe macroevolution still exists dispite the evidence to dispute it.

Strange the bible says in the end times people will stray from the faith

there is evidence all around you. many have given you several examples of it. you choose not to see it. and that is your perogitive.

so you believe that revelations is real? that the 4 horsemen are coming? I think I hear a Ric Flair WHOOOO! coming on.


-people of faith have faith for a reason. that reason is their own, and no one can convince them otherwise.

-same goes for atheists/agnostics. we have our reasons for not believing in a god or not believing there is enough evidence to prove the existence of one. basically the only thing that will convince me is some divine intervention that is inexplicable in my life, to ME. not some dude on a message board telling me he is praying for my soul.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

EddieLedBetter wrote:

i'd like to hear evidence that disputes it. I can't believe macroevolution still exists dispite the evidence to dispute it.

evidence put forth by whom? people who believe that evolution as a whole doesn't exist.

The criticism is rejected by the scientific community, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution as used in mainstream science relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, but shifts to acknowledge well observed evolution as "microevolution" and deny that "macroevolution" takes place. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community. While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

sources:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

EddieLedBetter

Johnny Sitar wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

i'd like to hear evidence that disputes it. I can't believe macroevolution still exists dispite the evidence to dispute it.

evidence put forth by whom? people who believe that evolution as a whole doesn't exist.

The criticism is rejected by the scientific community, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past. The terms macroevolution and microevolution as used in mainstream science relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, but shifts to acknowledge well observed evolution as "microevolution" and deny that "macroevolution" takes place. Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community. While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".

sources:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

All throughout history we have see evolution in the sense of change but never have we EVER found a fossil record that suggest that one species evolved into another one. Nor do we see it in the last 5 thousand years of one species changing into another. The finches beak adapted with the enviroment but the finch never turned from a finch into a turtle. Its always been a finch. There is no proof of macroevolution. Besided you cant base a change in the 10% found in fossil records. The 90% soft tissue is the heart of a genetic make up. There is no proof of a theory put forth by a man 100 years ago that species evolved from one to another. He couldnt see the complexity that lies within the cell. For order to come from chaos there would have to be first chaos and the findings within a single cell show that there isnt chaos, that infact there is complete udder complexity. http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
To not deny this theory is strickly a matter of the will not logic.

EddieLedBetter

Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Gern Blansten

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

oh well shit I guess I believe in god now

Gern Blansten

EddieLedBetter wrote:

All throughout history we have see evolution in the sense of change but never have we EVER found a fossil record that suggest that one species evolved into another one. Nor do we see it in the last 5 thousand years of one species changing into another. The finches beak adapted with the enviroment but the finch never turned from a finch into a turtle. Its always been a finch. There is no proof of macroevolution. Besided you cant base a change in the 10% found in fossil records. The 90% soft tissue is the heart of a genetic make up. There is no proof of a theory put forth by a man 100 years ago that species evolved from one to another. He couldnt see the complexity that lies within the cell. For order to come from chaos there would have to be first chaos and the findings within a single cell show that there isnt chaos, that infact there is complete udder complexity. http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
To not deny this theory is strickly a matter of the will not logic.

please educate yourself....this is like page one of the "how to argue with an atheist" pamphlet

EddieLedBetter

Johnny Sitar wrote:

we have our reasons for not believing in a god or not believing there is enough evidence to prove the existence of one. basically the only thing that will convince me is some divine intervention that is inexplicable in my life, to ME. not some dude on a message board telling me he is praying for my soul.

This we can agree on.

What I was getting at in my above post was just an arguement at how people blindly believe in evolution when its missing entire peices of chain just like religion is. Its just as illogical.

keeponrockin

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

we have our reasons for not believing in a god or not believing there is enough evidence to prove the existence of one. basically the only thing that will convince me is some divine intervention that is inexplicable in my life, to ME. not some dude on a message board telling me he is praying for my soul.

This we can agree on.

What I was getting at in my above post was just an arguement at how people blindly believe in evolution when its missing entire peices of chain just like religion is. Its just as illogical.

So you're ALSO claiming religion is illogical, no?

Gern Blansten

You are following an assumption that Darwin is the only authority on evolution.

Cosmo

EddieLedBetter wrote:

All throughout history we have see evolution in the sense of change but never have we EVER found a fossil record that suggest that one species evolved into another one. Nor do we see it in the last 5 thousand years of one species changing into another. The finches beak adapted with the enviroment but the finch never turned from a finch into a turtle. Its always been a finch. There is no proof of macroevolution. Besided you cant base a change in the 10% found in fossil records. The 90% soft tissue is the heart of a genetic make up. There is no proof of a theory put forth by a man 100 years ago that species evolved from one to another. He couldnt see the complexity that lies within the cell. For order to come from chaos there would have to be first chaos and the findings within a single cell show that there isnt chaos, that infact there is complete udder complexity. http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
To not deny this theory is strickly a matter of the will not logic.

...
Finches and turtles are in the same tree, but not the same branch. Compare finches to sparrows, turtles to tortises.
And you will find transitional species in the fossil record... such as those that possess transitional traits... a fin that has the characteristics of limbs and bridges the transition of fish to amphibian.
...
And unlike religion... Darwin did not profess all of the answers at once. He set forth a theory that, over time, have proven to be correct. So, yes.. Darwin did not see the complexities of DNA... but, we have discovered that triggering certain genes will fire off different results... mutations in the species... evolution of life.
Religion, on the other hand, sets forth a rule of law that is rigid and designed to be indisputable. And as we have seen, it is indisputable to those of us whom have chosen to follow it.

Gern Blansten

yeah the transitional fossil argument has been blown out of the water....I can't believe they still use that but again this same group believes dinosaurs and man lived together

I don't know if I can continue this....it's really like trying to convince my 8 year old that there aren't any ghosts in her closet

Hugh Freaking Dillon

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

we have our reasons for not believing in a god or not believing there is enough evidence to prove the existence of one. basically the only thing that will convince me is some divine intervention that is inexplicable in my life, to ME. not some dude on a message board telling me he is praying for my soul.

This we can agree on.

What I was getting at in my above post was just an arguement at how people blindly believe in evolution when its missing entire peices of chain just like religion is. Its just as illogical.

learning about evolution is an evolutionary process in itself, that's the difference. logic tells us we can't deny the findings of science.

it's unbelievable to me that you can sit there and say that evolution is illogical with all that we currently know. and basing it on nothing other than "well we once thought the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe". We have come significantly far in our knowledge base in the last century alone. You don't give man any credit at all. You keep denying yourself the truth of what's around us, from what I can tell, for no other reason but it pokes holes in all you have come to believe is real in your life.

Cosmo

Gern Blansten wrote:

yeah the transitional fossil argument has been blown out of the water....I can't believe they still use that but again this same group believes dinosaurs and man lived together

I don't know if I can continue this....it's really like trying to convince my 8 year old that there aren't any ghosts in her closet

...
It is basically a ploy... to go on the offensive to disprove science, instead of having to defend Creationism. That is where the whole, "Evolution is illogical' routine comes into play because... seriously... how can any employ logical reasoning to defend Creationism? A talking snake? Really?

EddieLedBetter

Im not denying evolution as a term of "change over time' is invalid nor that micro evolution is, I'm saying that species coming from different species is rediculous. Macroevolution. It is complete theory and there IS no proof of it. No proof of one species magically turning into another species. Just as rediculous as me believing in a God creator!

EddieLedBetter

Cosmo wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

yeah the transitional fossil argument has been blown out of the water....I can't believe they still use that but again this same group believes dinosaurs and man lived together

I don't know if I can continue this....it's really like trying to convince my 8 year old that there aren't any ghosts in her closet

...
It is basically a ploy... to go on the offensive to disprove science, instead of having to defend Creationism. That is where the whole, "Evolution is illogical' routine comes into play because... seriously... how can any employ logical reasoning to defend Creationism? A talking snake? Really?

I'm not arguing creationisim as defined. I believe in old earth. I'm saying something created us, that something I call God. I dont deny science, only theory which I believe there to be much evidence against, and darwinisim and evolution is just that. Theory.

Ya a talking snake is to be taken litteraly just like we are to drink and eat the blood of Jesus. My gosh man think!

Gern Blansten

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

yeah the transitional fossil argument has been blown out of the water....I can't believe they still use that but again this same group believes dinosaurs and man lived together

I don't know if I can continue this....it's really like trying to convince my 8 year old that there aren't any ghosts in her closet

...
It is basically a ploy... to go on the offensive to disprove science, instead of having to defend Creationism. That is where the whole, "Evolution is illogical' routine comes into play because... seriously... how can any employ logical reasoning to defend Creationism? A talking snake? Really?

I'm not arguing creationisim as defined. I believe in old earth. I'm saying something created us, that something I call God. I dont deny science, only theory which I believe there to be much evidence against, and darwinisim and evolution is just that. Theory.

Ya a talking snake is to be taken litteraly just like we are to drink and eat the blood of Jesus. My gosh man think!

again you are calling it a "theory"....The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word

and you want me to think?

Gern Blansten

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Im not denying evolution as a term of "change over time' is invalid nor that micro evolution is, I'm saying that species coming from different species is rediculous. Macroevolution. It is complete theory and there IS no proof of it. No proof of one species magically turning into another species. Just as rediculous as me believing in a God creator!

dude you can't even spell...you calling evolution ridiculous is.....ridiculous

EddieLedBetter

Johnny Sitar wrote:

learning about evolution is an evolutionary process in itself, that's the difference. logic tells us we can't deny the findings of science.

it's unbelievable to me that you can sit there and say that evolution is illogical with all that we currently know. and basing it on nothing other than "well we once thought the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe". We have come significantly far in our knowledge base in the last century alone. You don't give man any credit at all. You keep denying yourself the truth of what's around us, from what I can tell, for no other reason but it pokes holes in all you have come to believe is real in your life.

All that YOU currently know. You dont give man enough credit. Darwinisim was found before we could see inside of the cell. You are denying the complexitiy of the cell by buying into his stupid theory. Darwin had no idea the thousands upon thousands of books worth of information packed into DNA. He didnt even know it existed and you still buy it.

If you want a logical look at science and itelligent design read "I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" He points out all the clear cut evidence for an intelligent design.

EddieLedBetter

Gern Blansten wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Im not denying evolution as a term of "change over time' is invalid nor that micro evolution is, I'm saying that species coming from different species is rediculous. Macroevolution. It is complete theory and there IS no proof of it. No proof of one species magically turning into another species. Just as rediculous as me believing in a God creator!

dude you can't even spell...you calling evolution ridiculous is.....ridiculous

Good arguement in your favor! There is no God and I know nothing because I cant spell. I work in the field of science and comparative medicine not classroom teaching my friend.

Gern Blansten

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

learning about evolution is an evolutionary process in itself, that's the difference. logic tells us we can't deny the findings of science.

it's unbelievable to me that you can sit there and say that evolution is illogical with all that we currently know. and basing it on nothing other than "well we once thought the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe". We have come significantly far in our knowledge base in the last century alone. You don't give man any credit at all. You keep denying yourself the truth of what's around us, from what I can tell, for no other reason but it pokes holes in all you have come to believe is real in your life.

All that YOU currently know. You dont give man enough credit. Darwinisim was found before we could see inside of the cell. You are denying the complexitiy of the cell by buying into his stupid theory. Darwin had no idea the thousands upon thousands of books worth of information packed into DNA. He didnt even know it existed and you still buy it.

If you want a logical look at science and itelligent design read "I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" He points out all the clear cut evidence for an intelligent design.

wow.....just.....wow

Godfather.

ELB I heard that every persons DNA can be traced to 2 people,do you know if thats true
or anything about it ?

Godfather.

OutOfBreath

Godfather. wrote:

ELB I heard that every persons DNA can be traced to 2 people,do you know if thats true
or anything about it ?

Godfather.

What I've read about it is that most people outside of Africa can be traced to a group of 100ish people way back. Which is shown in the reatively small genetic variation between non-African people of the world. This does not apply for African peoples who have a broader descent and more genetic variation. It would appear that the rest of the world is descended from that breakout-group of people from Africa back in the dawn of time.

Peace
Dan

markin ball

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

learning about evolution is an evolutionary process in itself, that's the difference. logic tells us we can't deny the findings of science.

it's unbelievable to me that you can sit there and say that evolution is illogical with all that we currently know. and basing it on nothing other than "well we once thought the world was flat and the earth was the centre of the universe". We have come significantly far in our knowledge base in the last century alone. You don't give man any credit at all. You keep denying yourself the truth of what's around us, from what I can tell, for no other reason but it pokes holes in all you have come to believe is real in your life.

All that YOU currently know. You dont give man enough credit. Darwinisim was found before we could see inside of the cell. You are denying the complexitiy of the cell by buying into his stupid theory. Darwin had no idea the thousands upon thousands of books worth of information packed into DNA. He didnt even know it existed and you still buy it.

If you want a logical look at science and itelligent design read "I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" He points out all the clear cut evidence for an intelligent design.

You cant come to know God thinking through logic, He is outside the realm of logic. - EddieLedBetter

Gern Blansten

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Gern Blansten wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

Im not denying evolution as a term of "change over time' is invalid nor that micro evolution is, I'm saying that species coming from different species is rediculous. Macroevolution. It is complete theory and there IS no proof of it. No proof of one species magically turning into another species. Just as rediculous as me believing in a God creator!

dude you can't even spell...you calling evolution ridiculous is.....ridiculous

Good arguement in your favor! There is no God and I know nothing because I cant spell. I work in the field of science and comparative medicine not classroom teaching my friend.

it's a sign of intelligence

Hugh Freaking Dillon

EddieLedBetter wrote:

buying into his stupid theory......and you still buy it.

I'm pretty sure this argument is over! WOW, I can't believe you called the Theory of Evolution, which most scientists refer to as the Fact of Evolution, Darwin's "stupid theory" and mocking me for "still buy(ing) it".

I guess the whole scientific community who has any knowledge of life on earth is "still buying it".

All the books and articles you have told us to look at have a religious agenda. Show me an atheist scientist who has intricate knowledge of the subject AND denies evolution and I'll surely humour you by reading it.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

markin ball wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

If you want a logical look at science and itelligent design read "I Dont Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" He points out all the clear cut evidence for an intelligent design.

You cant come to know God thinking through logic, He is outside the realm of logic. - EddieLedBetter

HAHAHAHAHAHA. BUSTED!!