God... Christ... The Bible

Gern Blansten · January 2010

his point is that he is trying to convince us that science supports his side when we all know that it doesn't....except for him

Hugh Freaking Dillon · January 2010

Cosmo wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

i'm like a monkey like

Charles Darwin is a scientific god.
Charles Darwin is a scientific dog.

they are 90% alike in DNA but 2 completely different sentences

...
Actually... they are 84% alike in letters, which do not posess any DNA.
So. What is your point?

I think his point is, if I may, that how much dna we share is irrelevant. someone before mentioned we have similar dna to a dandelion or something like that, doesn't make us a flower. obviously, not a direct quote.

Cosmo · January 2010

Johnny Sitar wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

i'm like a monkey like

Charles Darwin is a scientific god.
Charles Darwin is a scientific dog.

they are 90% alike in DNA but 2 completely different sentences

...
Actually... they are 84% alike in letters, which do not posess any DNA.
So. What is your point?

I think his point is, if I may, that how much dna we share is irrelevant. someone before mentioned we have similar dna to a dandelion or something like that, doesn't make us a flower. obviously, not a direct quote.

...
Which still... has no point. No one disputes that we are not the same species as our chimpanzee relatives... or that we share common DNA. Turns out... all living things share common DNA. It does not mean there is a Creator behind all of this or there isn't. We are left with the same question... is there a God or isn't there?

EddieLedBetter · January 2010

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

Gern Blansten · January 2010

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

catefrances · January 2010

Johnny Sitar wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

A supernatural force is evil. Explain to me what evil is?

a god who kills (or lets die) someone in a car crash so that his friend will become a believer.

evil is a man made construct.

MichaelMcKevin · January 2010

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...

Gern Blansten · January 2010

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...

agreed...but we are definitely seeing a drop in those that claim to believe

people forget that Europe has a huge % of nonbelievers

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Hugh Freaking Dillon · January 2010

catefrances wrote:

Johnny Sitar wrote:

EddieLedBetter wrote:

A supernatural force is evil. Explain to me what evil is?

a god who kills (or lets die) someone in a car crash so that his friend will become a believer.

evil is a man made construct.

agreed, Cate.

EddieLedBetter · January 2010

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

EddieLedBetter · January 2010

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 · January 2010

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 · January 2010

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 · January 2010

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 · January 2010

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 · January 2010

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 · January 2010

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 · January 2010

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 · January 2010

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 · January 2010

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

God... Christ... The Bible

Comments

Categories