A Question For My Evolutionist Friends

[Dodgem250]

he paid our sin debt by dying on the cross to pay for our sins.

ok, so now... how did he pay for "our" sins, "our" as in you and me, when we showed up a long time after he died on said cross...

so, what you meant to say is, he died for "their" sins?

See, this is why I like the whole debate of religion, everybody has an answer on an issue related to a situation, but it's just never a current-to-date reply that I can count as a "reality" answer.

I do find the debates of religion regarding what's true and what's written in stories quite interesting, I read, I watch programs, I involve myself in being educated on the subject, and, I do in fact that God existed... once upon a time, and that time was way long ago, not now. I find that he did a great thing to show his heart for the people, that he existed with, he was just a hero of the days long ago.

Do I feel he exists now? No.

Do I feel like there is a heaven and hell, in a literally existing place? No.

What do I think happens when we die? ever seen food gone bad?

I think the Bible is probably the greatest story book ever written, certainly sold a lot of copies, and recopies and recopies, and well what I mean is, the story's have been past through so many centuries that things change, after all, ever gotten the "scoop" from you neighbor, who got it from, who got it from, who got it from.... got me?

 

[Tonio]

My only point in this discussion is to merely help people realize that science and religion are NOT necessarily at odds. Science can find the how, religion can answer by whom and why, and all fit together nicely. Religion is not some ignorant fairy tale myth that has no business in the discussion, subordinate to science. I do not try to make scientists believe my (or anyone else's) religion. I do not accept being force fed hypothesis as fact. We all have equal voices, each a different piece of the pie, with the same goal of truth.

Science and religion are compatible only when the two respect each other's domains of expertise. Anything dealing with the physical universe, including its origin and the origin of life, is in the scientific domain. Religion has no place in that particular discussion because its claims about the physical universe are defined as to exclude the possibility of evidence for the claims. (Remember that I'm talking only about supernaturalistic religions and not religions such as Confucianism or Buddhism.) It rejects the skepticism that is essential to scientific inquiry, treating all ideas as equal. It opposes the principle of knowing the universe through observation and deduction.

If the discussion were about the human experience, the roles would be reversed. Science would have no place in the discussion except in strict biological terms. That field would have nothing to say about the nature of love or beauty. It has no advice to offer on dealing with human impermanence, or humanity's relative powerlessness in the universe, or the inevitability of suffering, or the pursuit of happiness. This is the area where religion shines. Almost every religion in the world has a version of the Golden Rule, which strongly suggests that it's a truth that humans create through the experience of living and interacting with others.

I propose that all religions follow the example of Confucianism and most of Buddhism and abandon faith and supernaturalism entirely. Discussions of the nature of the human experience do not require claims or beliefs about supernatural entities. Religious myths are richer in meaning when read as metaphors embodying certain aspects of the human experience. The English language doesn't even have the terms for talking about religious ideas in a naturalistic context. "Spirituality" doesn't fit. "Philosophy" is not quite right either, because that concept also involves questions of knowledge and logic.

 

[Marie]

ok, so now... how did he pay for "our" sins, "our" as in you and me, when we showed up a long time after he died on said cross...

so, what you meant to say is, he died for "their" sins? ?

He died as a payment for all mankinds sin or at least those that chose to accept that notion. Being a perfect scarifice no one else could do that God need to pay the fine himself.
When you get born again your sins are covered under his blood past present and future

Do I feel he exists now? No.

Do I feel like there is a heaven and hell, in a literally existing place? No.

I used to study world religions and even praticed Tao. I seen them all as having a similar thread of humanaterian aspects to them. After a while it was if I am going to practice a faith, I am going back to Christianity. Its a better deal and not as silly as virtue is the essence and breathing excersises to reach an altered state of concious. Other faiths dont have a payment for our sin or offer eternal security.

As a believer I know he exsist. I see his hand at work in my life making changes I never could, nor never would. I see sinfull desires that I loved be taken away that now I hate. Sometimes I just wish he would work a little faster, as I see all the time how badly I blow it. I see the complexity of the human eye and the fine balance our planet hangs in, our the machanical way DNA chains work. Primmortal soup could never evolve to that level of complexity even if you believe in millions of years.

You dont have to believe in hell, Just like the man sentanced to the electric chair, he can tell the judge he dont believe in it but it changes nothing.
What if your wrong are you really that confident you would bet the most important thing you have. Its like playing russian roulett for 10K is it worth it? Really?

The persumption is we are by default, all childern to the god of this world Satan. He already has us in his head count. We love our sin, we want to be our own boss and not submitt to anyone and be self sufficent. He wants us to believe there is no God or if we need a higher power thats ok, or that we can be like God much like this Erkert Toll junk Opraha is pushing trying to fine the devine within.
So I understand why you feel the way you do, Its good though that you have a interest though. Think about it for what its worth.

 

[This_person]

On what basis do you and others believe there is meaning?

The basis that there is a guiding hand that created us, that has a plan for us, that gives us a soul and ever lasting life, that we're tied together with all living things in a way beyond mere happenstance....

Propositions must always fit the evidence. Even an attempt to fit evidence into a belief is problematic. I use "belief" to mean any proposition held independent of evidence, even if the proposition matches the evidence.

When one has a hypothesis, one tests the hypothesis to see if it hold water. Each test you perform to prove how God did His miracles gives evidence to the hypothesis of a God.

 

[This_person]

Science and religion are compatible only when the two respect each other's domains of expertise.

In a way, it sounds as if you and I are saying very similar things. I believe that science is in it's best role when researching the "how" of what God did, while religion is in it's best when discussing the "why".

Anything dealing with the physical universe, including its origin and the origin of life, is in the scientific domain. Religion has no place in that particular discussion because its claims about the physical universe are defined as to exclude the possibility of evidence for the claims. (Remember that I'm talking only about supernaturalistic religions and not religions such as Confucianism or Buddhism.) It rejects the skepticism that is essential to scientific inquiry, treating all ideas as equal.

Well, except for science's dismissing the possibility of a supernatural origin. Science is very open minded to it's own beliefs, and no others!

It opposes the principle of knowing the universe through observation and deduction.

Not at all. It's actually very supportive of observation and deduction. As a matter of fact, it's already come to some deductions that have, as yet, not been disproved (nor, regrettably, proved).

If the discussion were about the human experience, the roles would be reversed. Science would have no place in the discussion except in strict biological terms. That field would have nothing to say about the nature of love or beauty. It has no advice to offer on dealing with human impermanence, or humanity's relative powerlessness in the universe, or the inevitability of suffering, or the pursuit of happiness. This is the area where religion shines. Almost every religion in the world has a version of the Golden Rule, which strongly suggests that it's a truth that humans create through the experience of living and interacting with others.

Or, was built into our DNA from the beginning. Intentionally, not randomly. With purpose, not just 'cause it happened to work out that way.

And, science certainly does go to the places you've described. That's why we have so many drugs.

I propose that all religions follow the example of Confucianism and most of Buddhism and abandon faith and supernaturalism entirely.

Based upon what?

Discussions of the nature of the human experience do not require claims or beliefs about supernatural entities.

If they're true, you'd deny them because they're not required? Or, are you making the assumption off-hand that they're not true?

Religious myths are richer in meaning when read as metaphors embodying certain aspects of the human experience. The English language doesn't even have the terms for talking about religious ideas in a naturalistic context. "Spirituality" doesn't fit. "Philosophy" is not quite right either, because that concept also involves questions of knowledge and logic.

Myths may be better as metaphors. Certainly when Jesus spoke in parables, He was agreeing with this philosophy - He made his point with story.

Truths, however, are best told as truths.

You appear to make the assumption that the information put out by religion is simply not true, unknowledgable, and illogical (based upon your last sentence). You appear to dismiss, out of hand and without cause, the possibility that the supernatural could be true. That there is even a chance that the origins of life, the universe, and everything (thank you Douglas Adams) could be beyond our quantification. Don't you think such a view is pretty close minded?

 

[Tonio]

The basis that there is a guiding hand that created us, that has a plan for us, that gives us a soul and ever lasting life,

And what is the basis for that claim?

that we're tied together with all living things in a way beyond mere happenstance....

Some philosophies restate that concept in a way that does not amount to a claim about the physical universe at all. Instead, they talk about the relationship that humankind establishes with the universe.

Each test you perform to prove how God did His miracles gives evidence to the hypothesis of a God.

What miracles are you talking about? With miracles in scripture, we cannot assume that the events actually happened as described. We don't make that assumption with the Iliad or the Elder Edda. Even if an event has no obvious natural cause, we cannot simply assume that a supernatural entity was responsible. For that assumption to have any credibility, the existence of the entity would already have to have been established. The assumption rejects the more likely possibility that the event had some natural cause that has not yet been detected.

 

[This_person]

And what is the basis for that claim?

First-hand knowledge of miracles

Some philosophies restate that concept in a way that does not amount to a claim about the physical universe at all. Instead, they talk about the relationship that humankind establishes with the universe.

That's interesting.

What miracles are you talking about? With miracles in scripture, we cannot assume that the events actually happened as described. We don't make that assumption with the Iliad or the Elder Edda. Even if an event has no obvious natural cause, we cannot simply assume that a supernatural entity was responsible. For that assumption to have any credibility, the existence of the entity would already have to have been established. The assumption rejects the more likely possibility that the event had some natural cause that has not yet been detected.

But, to assume they simply did not happen is a rejection of a possibility, too. I'm not seeking anyone else to assume they did happen, just to not dismiss the possibility that they did happen. That would be rather arrogant, and close minded (not to mention unscientific).

 

[PsyOps]

I made no such claim about nothingness. Part of my point is that we don't know everything about how the universe and life originated - we don't know what all the preceding events were. Admitting we don't know is not only acceptable, it's also intellectually responsible.

That's a false dichotomy. It relies on the baseless assumption that events are random if there is no intelligence to guide them.

This statement implies that events can have a direction without a driver or catalyst. In other words it occurs in a vacuum. TP’s statement - that events have purpose and reason because of a creator - is no more baseless than yours. It’s a matter of belief. But if events are not random (as you have admitted they are not) that means they have a direction or a purpose or a reason; it’s going somewhere. If it doesn’t then it’s random. And having a belief in something is not false or baseless and is not an admission to not knowing how our universe got here devoid of any other explanation. And because you choose not to believe this doesn’t make it baseless.

I'm saying that we cannot rule out the possibility of such an intelligence, however remote the possibility. But the burden of proof is on any claim that such an intelligence exists.

For those that believe in this intelligence (we call God) there is no burden to prove it. It just is. But you can’t say there is an intelligence at the helm and in the same breath deny it’s a central controller; that this intelligence is some sort of purposeless, inanimate object.

I'm not sure of your point. I'm saying that the question of the existence of gods is a scientific question. It's not a question of faith or a question of theology. For example, we cannot perceive black holes directly with our senses, but we can perceive their effects.

You’re relying solely on science to answer everything: our existence and God. You’re putting your faith in something to provide your answers. How is that any different than someone putting their faith in God? Neither has provided us with ALL the answers. How many times has science been wrong. Stephen Hawking felt he had proven that black holes destroy everything; that all matter breaks down in a black hole. He spent decades proving his theory and it split the scientific community in half. His theory would destroy years of research in quantum physics. Then he realized he was wrong; matter does retain its original information. I understand physics to a certain degree but these guys have minds that go way beyond anything I’m willing to put faith in. I’m not sure I trust the science. What if there really were no black holes? It turns out Pluto, after all these years, is really not a planet. WHAT! What about the science behind global warming? Do we really trust these scientists to give us factual information or are they just a bunch of really smart mathematicians making a bunch of stuff up. Because you can’t travel billions of light years into space to prove these things you have to rely on faith that they are even telling us the truth about things that “exist” in our universe.

I don’t doubt there are black holes; that’s not really the point. I challenge your contention that our beliefs are baseless. I believe that we are here for a reason; that the result of this creation has a reason; that the intelligence behind this is God Yahweh. I don’t think ours is any more baseless or false than those that rely on science.

 

[Tonio]

In a way, it sounds as if you and I are saying very similar things. I believe that science is in it's best role when researching the "how" of what God did, while religion is in it's best when discussing the "why".

No, science is about both the "how" and the "why" with the latter referring to causes and not reasons. I have no simple word that describes how religion's realm is the human experience.

Well, except for science's dismissing the possibility of a supernatural origin.

While we cannot dismiss the possibility, we also cannot give the possibility any serious consideration without evidence.

As a matter of fact, it's already come to some deductions that have, as yet, not been disproved (nor, regrettably, proved).

Can you offer an example? What evidence was used to reach the deduction?

Or, was built into our DNA from the beginning.

There is no basis for that assumption.

And, science certainly does go to the places you've described. That's why we have so many drugs.

No, the drugs are merely tools that people use or abuse. They do not by themselves constitute any concepts about the human experience.

Based upon what?

Since the time of the ancient Greeks, mystical and supernatural explanations for natural events have been gradually disappearing as science discovers the natural causes for these events. This is a positive trend for two reasons. First, we can apply our knowledge about nature and the universe to improve our lives, such as through medicine. Second, the skepticism that is part of science is closely related to the skepticism that is part of democracy. As we question and analyzing what we observe, we also question government leaders and not simply take their claims at face value.

However, this trend also has the unintended effect of discrediting all of religion, not just its mystical elements. It offers no framework for discussing the human experience outside of both science and mysticism. It's not enough for science to demonstrate that volcanoes and earthquakes are caused by natural geological forces, because humans must still deal with the suffering that results from these disasters. Religion can fill this vacuum, not by claiming that such disasters are the work of angry supernatural beings, but by talking about productive ways to deal with the suffering. I'm thinking of something like Zen Buddhism, although my knowledge about that is somewhat limited.

If they're true, you'd deny them because they're not required? Or, are you making the assumption off-hand that they're not true?

Neither. I've already acknowledge the possibility that they may be true. I'm saying out that any claim about the supernatural being necessary for any consideration of the human experience is merely an assumption.

Myths may be better as metaphors. Certainly when Jesus spoke in parables, He was agreeing with this philosophy - He made his point with story.

Truths, however, are best told as truths.

Jesus' parables do not appear to be myths. They appear to embody certain truths that Jesus believed about the human experience. That's a practice found in many religions and philosophies.

You appear to make the assumption that the information put out by religion is simply not true, unknowledgable, and illogical (based upon your last sentence).

Sorry for the misunderstanding. My reference to logic was not intended as a slam on religion. I was saying that philosophy often discusses the nature of knowledge and the nature of logic. While I've never had training in philosophy, I do know that philosophy students are taught how to approach arguments logically, in a way that transcends mere debate.

 

[Tonio]

First-hand knowledge of miracles.

And what were these? What made them miracles and not natural events?

But, to assume they simply did not happen is a rejection of a possibility, too. I'm not seeking anyone else to assume they did happen, just to not dismiss the possibility that they did happen.

I've already acknowledged the possibility. Where is the evidence that would turn the possibility into a probability?

 

[This_person]

No, science is about both the "how" and the "why" with the latter referring to causes and not reasons. I have no simple word that describes how religion's realm is the human experience.

The "cause" without meaning is really just the "how". How the trigger got moved, how the bullet started it's motion, how the bullet impacted the lifeform it hit. What religion considers unimportant, but interesting, details. Religion is more the why - was the trigger pulled by a person, was it with intent to harm, etc.; or, did it just fall onto something wrong and was completely random - without motive or reason. Both have a how, and the "how"s are identical. One has a why, one has a random, pointless, meaningless explaination.

While we cannot dismiss the possibility, we also cannot give the possibility any serious consideration without evidence.

Why? Every possibility is without evidence (conjecture) until there is proof. Why is lightening hitting mud just right any more serious to consider than a supernatural event? Is there any answer you can provide to that which is not bigotted against a thought process other than that of an atheist?

Can you offer an example? What evidence was used to reach the deduction?

Life exists. Life that cannot be demonstrated to exist anywhere else, even with comets from different star systems examined (as well as planets visited within our own system), and constant searching of the heavens for any existence of anything else. Not proven, not disproven to exist.

There is no basis for that assumption.

Except that it seems innate to people across the globe and across time, regardless of religion or upbringing. It's almost as if we're made that way. Wait, that is a basis for a hypothesis!

No, the drugs are merely tools that people use or abuse. They do not by themselves constitute any concepts about the human experience.

They merely attempt to alter them biologically.

However, this trend also has the unintended effect of discrediting all of religion, not just its mystical elements.

In what way has science discredited anything associated with Christianity? I know of many attempts, I know of no completed acts of discrediting.

Neither. I've already acknowledge the possibility that they may be true. I'm saying out that any claim about the supernatural being necessary for any consideration of the human experience is merely an assumption.

As is any other unproven hypothesis. Why dismiss a whole realm of possibility?

Jesus' parables do not appear to be myths. They appear to embody certain truths that Jesus believed about the human experience. That's a practice found in many religions and philosophies.

And?

Sorry for the misunderstanding. My reference to logic was not intended as a slam on religion. I was saying that philosophy often discusses the nature of knowledge and the nature of logic. While I've never had training in philosophy, I do know that philosophy students are taught how to approach arguments logically, in a way that transcends mere debate.

Almost in a scientific manner? Philosophy, like religion, does that. I agree!

 

[This_person]

And what were these? What made them miracles and not natural events?

This is a very personal, intimate thing. It's not something I can or will address on an internet forum. Doesn't make it less true, but I just can't discuss it here.

I've already acknowledged the possibility. Where is the evidence that would turn the possibility into a probability?

With the evidence of a chemical reaction on lifeless objects turning them into life. Other than the fact that life exists, there is no evidence. Thus, the two theories are equals.

 

[Tonio]

This statement implies that events can have a direction without a driver or catalyst. In other words it occurs in a vacuum.

No, I was saying that the catalyst is a natural force. The concept is known as causal determinism.

But if events are not random (as you have admitted they are not) that means they have a direction or a purpose or a reason; it’s going somewhere. If it doesn’t then it’s random.

I'm taking about the claim that purpose and reason were consciously created by a supernatural entity. Again, there is no evidence for that claim. You would have a point if you are referring to purpose or reason as the same as a natural cause.

For those that believe in this intelligence (we call God) there is no burden to prove it. It just is. But you can’t say there is an intelligence at the helm and in the same breath deny it’s a central controller; that this intelligence is some sort of purposeless, inanimate object.

When I acknowledge the possibility of gods, I emphasize that the gods may have any sort of natures, and that some people's beliefs about the gods may be wrong. Some people believe in a single god and others believe in many. What evidence would show that one group is wrong and the other one right?

You’re relying solely on science to answer everything: our existence and God. You’re putting your faith in something to provide your answers.

No, science's answers can be tested in some cases and analyzed in others to see if they continue to match data from observations. Scientists don't simply accept their colleagues' conclusions without question.

How many times has science been wrong...

That implies that science simply replaces one set of knowledge with another. It's more accurate to say that science adds to its storehouse of knowledge with new discoveries. While there have sometimes been wrong turns, the overall collection of knowledge continues to grow.

It turns out Pluto, after all these years, is really not a planet. WHAT!

That wasn't a case where Pluto was never a planet and we simply didn't discover this until recently. It was a case where the discovery of small planets beyond Pluto caused a firestorm of controversy among astronomers as to how they should define a planet. (That's why the first one discovered was named Eris, for the goddess of discord.) So Pluto, Eris, Ceres and others were put into the new classification of "dwarf planet." The issue was about humans revising their own classifications for observable objects, based on new tools for making observations. I sometimes joke that Pluto was demoted.

Because you can’t travel billions of light years into space to prove these things you have to rely on faith that they are even telling us the truth about things that “exist” in our universe.

Scientific hypotheses are not "truth" and they are not branded as such by science. They are attempts to explain observed phenomena. Obviously some hypotheses cannot be conclusively proven because we don't have the ability to make certain observations. But that caveat is inherent in the concept of the scientific hypothesis.

I challenge your contention that our beliefs are baseless. I believe that we are here for a reason; that the result of this creation has a reason; that the intelligence behind this is God Yahweh.

Would you explain the basis for your beliefs?

 

[Tonio]

Religion is more the why..

My point is that the existence of the "why" for natural events is a question for science because it involves the physical universe. A being behind the "why" would be like any other natural object or natural phenomenon, and thus subject to scientific inquiry.

Every possibility is without evidence (conjecture) until there is proof.

Not quite. A possibility is conjecture unless there is evidence, which turns the possibility into a probability. Proof would turn the probability into a fact.

Why is lightening hitting mud just right any more serious to consider than a supernatural event?

Because any claim about "why" inevitably leads to the question of the intelligence's motive. This is where religion enters the whole distatesful realm of natural events being punishments from angry entities. That goes against the idea of looking at the natural world empirically and skeptically. It implies that humans should not be curious about how the universe works.

Life exists. Life that cannot be demonstrated to exist anywhere else, even with comets from different star systems examined (as well as planets visited within our own system), and constant searching of the heavens for any existence of anything else. Not proven, not disproven to exist.

I'm not sure of your point. Based on our current knowledge of our planet and of the universe, it is probable that life exists somewhere. While this is not proven or disproven, it simply means that the evidence favors the existence.

Except that it seems innate to people across the globe and across time, regardless of religion or upbringing.

How is it innate when many religions do not believe in single gods?

It's almost as if we're made that way.

It's possible that we evolved that way, as Dean Hamer as hypothesized.

In what way has science discredited anything associated with Christianity?

I wasn't talking about Christianity specifically. I was talking about the entire realm of mystical explanations for natural events.

Why dismiss a whole realm of possibility?

Pointing out that a suggested possibility is an assumption doesn't dismiss the possibility.

And?

And Jesus' ideas about the human experience can be evaluated for value for one's own life experience.

 

[Lugnut]

Tonio and TP, I'd like to buy both of you the beverage of your choice some lazy afternoon and just it back and BS with you two..

This has been one of the better threads in the religion forum.

 

[Dodgem250]

Tonio and TP, I'd like to buy both of you the beverage of your choice some lazy afternoon and just it back and BS with you two..

This has been one of the better threads in the religion forum.

Yeah me too, I'd love to set, listen, learn and then offer up my 2 cents worth of reality.

 

[Dodgem250]

He died as a payment for all mankinds sin or at least those that chose to accept that notion. Being a perfect scarifice no one else could do that God need to pay the fine himself.
When you get born again your sins are covered under his blood past present and future

I understand what you're trying to say, but... that just ain't working for me in "our" current world, that's still not an answer, that's another "way around", I hear that a lot in religious discussions.




I used to study world religions and even praticed Tao. I seen them all as having a similar thread of humanaterian aspects to them. After a while it was if I am going to practice a faith, I am going back to Christianity. Its a better deal and not as silly as virtue is the essence and breathing excersises to reach an altered state of concious. Other faiths dont have a payment for our sin or offer eternal security.

I am going back to Christianity

Are you saying that because you find that Christianity makes more sense in regards to your beliefs? I am really curious as to why you made this decision. I hear people constantly converting their religion, and I don't understand the mentality that goes into such a decision.

As a believer I know he exsist.

ExistED.

I see his hand at work in my life making changes I never could, nor never would. I see sinfull desires that I loved be taken away that now I hate. Sometimes I just wish he would work a little faster, as I see all the time how badly I blow it. I see the complexity of the human eye and the fine balance our planet hangs in, our the machanical way DNA chains work. Primmortal soup could never evolve to that level of complexity even if you believe in millions of years.

You dont have to believe in hell, Just like the man sentanced to the electric chair, he can tell the judge he dont believe in it but it changes nothing.
What if your wrong are you really that confident you would bet the most important thing you have. Its like playing russian roulett for 10K is it worth it? Really?



The persumption is we are by default, all childern to the god of this world Satan. He already has us in his head count. We love our sin, we want to be our own boss and not submitt to anyone and be self sufficent. He wants us to believe there is no God or if we need a higher power thats ok, or that we can be like God

much like this Erkert Toll junk Opraha is pushing trying to fine the devine within.

Oprah just knows, like any good salesman knows, Religion and Patriotism SELLS! You know, like people holding cardboard signs and yelling "Bless you, God be with you", they know that if they "hook" the right persons, they'll get a bigger hand out.

And what really saddens me about this world is how so many businesses all of a sudden went red, white, and blue, after 9/11, guess they found the perfect marketing niche. I mean, look at the dude who started the ribbon campaign, the dude is probably not even an American!

But he figured, man I can now "sale des much box of mag-a-nets to de amerikas I just paint them red, blue, white, den dey sale much".

 

[Tonio]

This is a very personal, intimate thing. It's not something I can or will address on an internet forum. Doesn't make it less true, but I just can't discuss it here.

I understand. I don't contest the fact that you had the experience itself. My point is about the cause of such experiences and how people use them. Claims that such experiences have supernatural causes do not stand up under the scientific principles of repeatability and falsifiability.

But the issue is not with the experiences themselves. The issue is that many religions use such experiences as a basis for insisting that none of their claims can be challenged because they allegedly come from transcendent authorities that can never be challenged. Scientific hypotheses are always open to challenge based on available evidence, and it's not unusual for fields such as abiogenesis to have several hypotheses. Supernaturalistic religions do not allow for that type of disagreement - to disagree with the religion is to disagree with God.

Any hypothesis about the physical universe must rest on more than a personal conviction one has heard the voice of a supernatural being and must impose that being's sanction upon the rest of the world. I'm not assuming that you seek to impose such a sanction, but that is the thread that runs through the creationist literature I've seen.

 

[Marie]

Are you saying that because you find that Christianity makes more sense in regards to your beliefs? I am really curious as to why you made this decision. I hear people constantly converting their religion, and I don't understand the mentality that goes into such a decision.".

I was a false Christian convert when I was 14, I thought I was a Christian, but I was was decieved. There was no fruit of the Holy Spirit in my life, some would say I back slide for years. I now realize, I never slid forward in the first place. After turning my back on God to do my own thing for well over 20 years.
I found myself in a place practicing a religion by deception, you see we signed up for a course in Qigong, which wasnt supose to interfer with anyone religious beliefs. After a while though, Buddism and Taoism were being mixed in. Our Chinese friends that were teaching us got very upset if we werent there every Saturday, it took away from the groups energy so we were told. Buttom line after 3 years or 2 1/2 which ever it was, basicly we were practicing a mix of middle eastern religions. There culture was interesting, but I had a religion I was rebelling from, I didnt need a new one, based on the power within, and the external energy of the universe.
I realized that this power within, wasnt from within, and had a pretty good idea what it truely was. I need to start working my way back to a religion that made sense, and sense of everything. I didnt need, virtue is the essence, if I was going to be virtous why not have it be a product of my faith, instead of trying to do it own my own. If I was going to give authority of my life over, why not give it to God the God that could save me from my sin, if Id been the knee and submitt to his will.
If something is promising you extradionary abilities, its not of God its demonic.
I am just glad God brought me to my senses before it was to late. It was still a slow road, but it was progressive in the right direction.

 

[nhboy]

Ok I need some help with this.
We get the first animal that evolved that has the capability of reproduction. What did it reproduce with?

"First Sex" Found in Australian Fossils?

"Sex is part of the "oldest profession" and is often called the subject of the "world's oldest joke." Now scientists think they've found evidence of the oldest known creatures to engage in sexual reproduction."

"First Sex" Found in Australian Fossils?