In case you

[Xaquin44]

You forgot to mention "Hitler"! lol

And perhaps you are not aware of what Jesus said in regard to anyone who claims to be one of His followers:

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock..."

(Matthew 7:22-24)

OOOOOHHHHHHHH more text!

incredible!

concrete evidence!

as I've always said. If someone took the time to write something, it is truth. After all, there is no such thing as fiction and people never exagurate, embelish or lie.

 

[Xaquin44]

So you believe the Theory of Evolution because Darwin wrote it down. ???

uh .... no.

I believe in it for the most part because there is direct and proven evidence.

 

[Starman3000m]

OOOOOHHHHHHHH more text!

incredible!

concrete evidence!

as I've always said. If someone took the time to write something, it is truth. After all, there is no such thing as fiction and people never exagurate, embelish or lie.

As I replied, the Theory of Evolution was also written down, you read about it and believe it - yet there is no concrete proof that things evolved as explained. It's still all theory.

So, based on that premise There Is Only One Truth; either Creationism by a Divine supreme Creator is true or Evolution is true. In that regard, there is no other alternative but to choose which One you believe.

 

[Xaquin44]

As I replied, the Theory of Evolution was also written down, you read about it and believe it - yet there is no concrete proof that things evolved as explained. It's still all theory.

So, based on that premise There Is Only One Truth; either Creationism by a Divine supreme Creator is true or Evolution is true. In that regard, there is no other alternative but to choose which One you believe.

being purposefully dumb is not an excuse. There is evidence. Is it fully understood? No. It may never be fully understood. However, there is evidence and there is proof. It has been documented and seen.

edit: there is a big difference between 'written' and 'written and backed up with factual evidence'

 

[wxtornado]

Even if there were no religious beliefs, Nucklesack, I can almost guess that Atheists would still never be able to agree among themselves in regard to the origins of life. The real problem with Atheists is that the concept of a Supreme Creator Being becomes a "thorn" in their side and this in turns results in contempt and antagonism toward anyone who believes in Creationism. It is evident by the constant attacks and ridicule that Atheists launch against one who believes in God.

And, even if there were no "religious" values regarding loving your neighbor and enemy as Jesus taught, I am quite sure that mankind would never be able to grasp that concept on their own. Mankind would still be at war with one another and hate for others would abound just as much.

With so much disagreement among non-religious humanistic values, i.e., Communism & Marxism, Non-believers are the ones who seem to suffer from a failure of logic. In the end, There Is Only One Truth.

Want freedom from confusion?

Try atheism. It's pretty straightforward. You find that reality is simply reality. You don't get into weird moebius-strip thinking gobbledy-gook nonsense like:

"We can only understand the incomprehensible mind of God by understanding that we can never understand the incomprehensible mind of God."

"A loving and infinitely all-merciful God allows you to make a choice that sends you to eternal torment in Hell."

"God knows every choice you will ever make infinitely before you make it. However, you have free will even though your choice is already made infintiely before you were even born."

"God is the answer to all things. What is that answer? That everything is from God. You can never understand God, so you are forever precluded from truly understanding anything, because everything has come from something you can never hope to understand."

Frankly, when I walked away from all that blithering and blathering, life became simple, easy, and understandable.

 

[brendar buhl]

because if you're going to saunter about spouting off statements as fact, it's always a good idea to have some evidence. Especially if you're going to ask for 10% of their income and/or damn them to an eternity in hell.

also, proponants of evolution couldn't generally care less about 'saving your soul' in the context of the theory.

In other words, evolution make no claims on the soul so you would be rejecting it on a belief that the theory itself has no claim on.

So, you have no problem with my religious beliefs so long as I refrain from using them to uproot you scientific beliefs?

 

[Xaquin44]

So, you have no problem with my religious beliefs so long as I refrain from using them to uproot you scientific beliefs?

you couldn't anyway as you have no tangible evidence.

On the whole, I couldn't care less if people have faith. It's when they tell me I'm headed to hell or try to teach something that is not science in a science classroom that I take offense.

plus I like to argue sometimes.

 

[This_person]

Well, we've been thru this one before, haven't we? Support your assertion with something concrete, and then we can test that assertion for accuracy. A great exmaple on the scientific side is evolution: Once it was just an idea in a couple of people's heads. But then, after building a case for it, it was shown to have validity.

Can your theism match that?

I continue to make no claim of proof of any theistic thought. I merely continue to submit that evolution (as it applies to humans) has no proof, either.

There is proof that a specific species will slowly change over time. There is nothing but conjecture as to why, and there has been nothing that I can see that shows the same single celled organisms being able to mutate into animals, insects, and plants (etc.) as would HAVE to be what happened within the evolution theory. I also see zero testable proof of any of it, just conjecture fed upon past conjecture, with a few unrepeatable observations thrown in as "proof". Nothing testable (as in, repeat with other people watching), just conjecture and informal observation. Again, the scientific view is commonly held for Big Bang - which, unless you can start with the given situation being no universe, you cannot test - conjecture. Again, unless someone can prove what the conditions were on earth when it went from lifeless to having a cell of life, and can repeat those conditions more than once to test the mechanism through which life occurred, it's pure conjecture.

When held to the same standards as theistic thoughts, the "scientific" thoughts on the creation of the universe, the creation of life, and how life became human life has no more credibility than any "super-natural" explaination.

 

[This_person]

because if you're going to saunter about spouting off statements as fact, it's always a good idea to have some evidence. Especially if you're going to ask for 10% of their income and/or damn them to an eternity in hell.

also, proponants of evolution couldn't generally care less about 'saving your soul' in the context of the theory.

In other words, evolution make no claims on the soul so you would be rejecting it on a belief that the theory itself has no claim on.

Much like the theistic thought that proof is unneccesary.

BTW, no one asks for 10% or damnation. Blatant lie on your part.

 

[wxtornado]

I continue to make no claim of proof of any theistic thought. I merely continue to submit that evolution (as it applies to humans) has no proof, either.

And you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

 

[Xaquin44]

even if it is completely wrong (which it is).

 

[tirdun]

Again, the scientific view is commonly held for Big Bang - which, unless you can start with the given situation being no universe, you cannot test - conjecture.

Ah, I see. By redefining "Science" to mean only lab experiments and relegating a hundred other forms of legitimate research and study to "conjecture" you've created a nice, safe defensive position. An illusionary position, since you lack enough understanding of Science to define it, much less REdefine it, but one that you can defend simply by demanding to see a lab experiment in which the universe is created or in which an early version of Earth (with impossible to define atmospheric conditions since we lack an observer to tell us) creates life, or in which an elephant evolves into some non-mammal creature.

I'll leave you with a lab experiment, feel free to point out the conjecture involved. This was an observed, repeated, and documented process in which bacteria mutated, created new genetic information and gained a very powerful evolutionary advantage over their soon-to-be dead siblings. Every step of this mutation is understood, every shift in genetics has been documented. I suppose since they didn't create an entirely new, multi-celled species it doesn't count in your amazing definition of science.

Lab Evolution

 

[bcp]

And you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

I know I for one have been trying to get a couple answers on that subject myself, but never have. Im sure they are out there.

I figure since those that are destined at this point (it can change at any moment) to burn in hell for eternity, are convinced that God can not exist because there is no science to back up the existance, it is only fair that they provide me with an alternative. proven alternative.

see, I understand the trouble in the thought that God just always was, I cant understand how something can not have a start, and a finish, I suppose this is where a certain amount of faith comes into play with regards to religion. any religion.

I have an equal time understanding how on one hand science can tell me that it is not possible for God to exist because there would have to be a beginning and most likely and end to his life, yet on the other hand I am asked to believe that the particles that made up the planets, and by chance landed in such a precise way and place as to create life, have been here forever.
no start, no end, the particles have just been here forever.

the way I see it, science has no future beyond my death for me. God on the other hand, through the acceptance of Jesus Christ does give me a future beyond my death.

easy choice.

 

[wxtornado]

...... the way I see it, science has no future beyond my death for me. God on the other hand, through the acceptance of Jesus Christ does give me a future beyond my death.

easy choice.

It this why you believe then, so that you have a "future beyond [your] death"?

 

[bcp]

It this why you believe then, so that you have a "future beyond [your] death"?

I believe because thats what it is, the future beyond death is only a perk.

explain to me how something can be made from nothing, as is indicated by the scientific theory, then go ahead and figure the odds of all things needed to create life falling into one place, with that planet being the exact distance from the sun to support that life.
too many holes, cant be explained.

 

[Vince]

“Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

 

[This_person]

And you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

I've yet to be proven wrong in my opinion. Any other opinion has no basis in fact, just conjecture.

 

[Xaquin44]

I believe because thats what it is, the future beyond death is only a perk.

explain to me how something can be made from nothing, as is indicated by the scientific theory, then go ahead and figure the odds of all things needed to create life falling into one place, with that planet being the exact distance from the sun to support that life.
too many holes, cant be explained.

clearly an invisible being that knows the future and is infinitly merciful but made cancer is the only logical choice then.

 

[This_person]

Ah, I see. By redefining "Science" to mean only lab experiments and relegating a hundred other forms of legitimate research and study to "conjecture" you've created a nice, safe defensive position. An illusionary position, since you lack enough understanding of Science to define it, much less REdefine it, but one that you can defend simply by demanding to see a lab experiment in which the universe is created or in which an early version of Earth (with impossible to define atmospheric conditions since we lack an observer to tell us) creates life, or in which an elephant evolves into some non-mammal creature.

I'll leave you with a lab experiment, feel free to point out the conjecture involved. This was an observed, repeated, and documented process in which bacteria mutated, created new genetic information and gained a very powerful evolutionary advantage over their soon-to-be dead siblings. Every step of this mutation is understood, every shift in genetics has been documented. I suppose since they didn't create an entirely new, multi-celled species it doesn't count in your amazing definition of science.

Lab Evolution

We've discussed that one before. It demonstrates that changes occur within a species for unknown reasons, and has not been repeated (one of the many definitions I've been given by y'all for something to be scientificially valid is that it is both testable and repeatable). He demonstrated he could get the same results from the same sample, but could not recreate the results in other samples.

He proved sh!t happens for unexplainable reasons. From an objective point of view, that's all he proved.

 

[This_person]

Ah, I see. By redefining "Science" to mean only lab experiments and relegating a hundred other forms of legitimate research and study to "conjecture" you've created a nice, safe defensive position. An illusionary position, since you lack enough understanding of Science to define it, much less REdefine it, but one that you can defend simply by demanding to see a lab experiment in which the universe is created or in which an early version of Earth (with impossible to define atmospheric conditions since we lack an observer to tell us) creates life, or in which an elephant evolves into some non-mammal creature.

Well, then, enlighten me as to what repeatable test could be performed to "prove" the Big Bang Theory.