Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[BobRyan]

OK, I'll try this nice and slow. That is an interesting and very important point, PsychoSarah. Evolution is not about brutal competition. There is a definite altruistic side to it. Bacteria have been known to exhibit altruistic behavior. I posit all entities have feelings and empathy for one another. .

i guess - once you start making stuff up - there is no limit.

Indeed -- you can escape from any unpleasant reality

Which is how blind faith evolutionism limps along.

 

[BobRyan]

What reason is there to accept the creation account?

you mean... "if you are atheist or agnostic - why believe the creation account in the Bible"??

As someone here has already noted - they don't like the idea of a short meaningless life - but would prefer to live forever.

Sounds like a person should accept whatever makes them feel better about themselves and their lives... regardless of truth.

If your "hole in the ground dead end" idea is right - then we all get your "glorious reward" of a "very bad ending" regardless of whether we choose to be atheist or not.

If the WORD of God - the Bible is correct - then your result goes from "very bad" to - "truly horrible" - while the upside is eternal life.

And that is the "motivation" to check into the actual facts - and discard all the story-telling, confirmed hoax and confirmed fraud mechanisms central to blind faith evolutionism.,

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed -- rather than seeing the Bible as God's autobiography (as too many Christians do, IMO), it should be seen as a historical record of a people trying (and often falling short) to understand the "God" experience they believed was revealed to them.

We see the people in the Bible fail time and again -- and it is from that stock that the authors came from... dare we call them infallible?

That is exactly what we expect from atheists and agnostics.

See it all the time.

Hence the OP.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If you interpret every result as success - then you will never find the right solution.

Anything that results in us learning something we didn't know before is a success... learning is always the goal.

The way to "learn" from a failing result -- is to admit to failure and try something different.

Which is exactly what scientists do -- far more than their detractors, I've noticed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

you mean... "if you are atheist or agnostic - why believe the creation account in the Bible"??

As someone here has already noted - they don't like the idea of a short meaningless life - but would prefer to live forever.

And if we lived in a magical world where we always get what we want, that would mean something...

However, I believe it was the prophets Jagger and Richards who continue to remind us that you can't always get what you want...

If your "hole in the ground dead end" idea is right - then we all get your "glorious reward" of a "very bad ending" regardless of whether we choose to be atheist or not.

If the WORD of God - the Bible is correct - then your result goes from "very bad" to - "truly horrible" - while the upside is eternal life.

Sounds like it's fear -- fear of the "truly horrible" -- and preference for the promises, however flimsy, of "eternal life, which draw people to the "Word of God" in droves?

And that is the "motivation" to check into the actual facts - and discard all the story-telling, confirmed hoax and confirmed fraud mechanisms central to blind faith evolutionism.,

Central, you say? Care to support that claim?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
If you interpret every result as success - then you will never find the right solution.

Anything that results in us learning something we didn't know before is a success... learning is always the goal.

BobRyan said: ↑

The way to "learn" from a failing result -- is to admit to failure and try something different.

Which is exactly what scientists do --

.

And is why we refer to junk-science evolutionism as a poor religion - and not science at all. In blind faith evolutionism "all news is good news" such that any report of failure 'must be evil' -- and "is certainly wrong".

 

[TLK Valentine]

And is why we refer to junk-science evolutionism as a poor religion - and not science at all. In blind faith evolutionism "all news is good news" such that any report of failure 'must be evil' -- and "is certainly wrong".

Are you paying attention? I literally just told you that anything you learn from is a success.

Try listening to people instead of parroting tired old canards... you might learn something new.

 

[PsychoSarah]

you mean... "if you are atheist or agnostic - why believe the creation account in the Bible"??

As someone here has already noted - they don't like the idea of a short meaningless life - but would prefer to live forever.

Fear is not a valid reason for belief.

 

[BobRyan]

Fear is not a valid reason for belief.

But given that atheism is pure nonsense about how dirt turns into rabbits and horses - and given that rejecting the Gospel gets you the lake of fire... it is at the very "least" a valid reason to open your mind to a fair and honest consideration of the scenario where you don't burn in the lake of fire.

You can't lose in that effort - you can only break even or win.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But given that atheism is pure nonsense about how dirt turns into rabbits and horses - and given that rejecting the Gospel gets you the lake of fire... it is at the very "least" a valid reason to open your mind to a fair and honest consideration of the scenario where you don't burn in the lake of fire.

You can't lose in that effort - you can only break even or win.

You forgot other religions. This isn't a dichotomy, at most, only one religion can be right, and it is entirely possible none of them are. Furthermore, atheism just means not believing in deities. There were atheists long before evolution as a concept was even conceived, before the concept of an old Earth, and so on.

As a seeker, you know I am more than open to the possibility a deity/deities exist, but without evidence for it, I can't force myself to believe it. Even if evolution was disproven, heck, if every scientific theory was disproven tomorrow, it wouldn't mean deities existed or even were more likely to exist.

 

[Hieronymus]

You forgot other religions. This isn't a dichotomy, at most, only one religion can be right, and it is entirely possible none of them are. Furthermore, atheism just means not believing in deities.

Nope, it means believing no deities exist.
It's naturalism.
Otherwise it would be agnostic.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Indeed -- you can escape from any unpleasant reality, even the temporary nature of life itself.

Agreed, like trying to convince people finches are separate species when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring right in front of your eyes? All to escape from the reality that they are merely different infraspecific taxa within the species and their classification was an error by Darwin over 100+ years ago?

And is why we refer to junk-science evolutionism as a poor religion - and not science at all. In blind faith evolutionism "all news is good news" such that any report of failure 'must be evil' -- and "is certainly wrong".

Random statistical error which can be discarded because the data does not fit the belief - instead of adjusting the belief to fit the data.

The problem is you don't write a paper to be published on a failed experiment, only on those that you consider successful. What evolutionists will never admit to themselves is that for every successful experiment that "might" be construed to back an evolutionary view - there were 99 that were unsuccessful and falsified the evolutionary view. You just never publish the 99% that failed so people never hear about them.

This is true in every science division research. I work in engineering and the company never publishes it's failed experiments - only it's successful ones. Much better for the bottom line if the public hears only good things about your company - not the 1,000's of failures or dead ends that led nowhere except to prove your idea as a failure.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nope, it means believing no deities exist.
It's naturalism.
Otherwise it would be agnostic.

Most atheists are agnostic. Agnosticism isn't a faith statement, but a knowledge statement. Most atheists, like myself, are agnostic atheists, meaning that we don't believe in deities, and we don't claim that deities can't possibly exist either, or claim to have evidence either way. The majority of people that label themselves agnostic are atheists, and just don't want the stigma that comes with the atheist label. Although, there are agnostic theists too.

It's a misconception so common, that it is more frequent for people to incorrectly use the two words than use them correctly. I've even seen atheists use the terms wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You forgot other religions. This isn't a dichotomy, at most, only one religion can be right, and it is entirely possible none of them are. Furthermore, atheism just means not believing in deities. There were atheists long before evolution as a concept was even conceived, before the concept of an old Earth, and so on.

As a seeker, you know I am more than open to the possibility a deity/deities exist, but without evidence for it, I can't force myself to believe it. Even if evolution was disproven, heck, if every scientific theory was disproven tomorrow, it wouldn't mean deities existed or even were more likely to exist.

Doesn't really matter regardless of what the believers or non-believers say - it's the way you live your life that matters in the end.

http://biblehub.com/romans/2-14.htm

Jesus attempted to portray this in the parable of the neighbor. The neighbor was not the one of his religion or country - but the non-believer and foreigner that stopped to help.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Doesn't really matter regardless of what the believers or non-believers say - it's the way you live your life that matters in the end.

http://biblehub.com/romans/2-14.htm

Jesus attempted to portray this in the parable of the neighbor. The neighbor was not the one of his religion or country - but the non-believer and foreigner that stopped to help.

My mom believes all good people will go to heaven, regardless as to belief. Which is a nice sentiment, I suppose. I don't live a particularly immoral life by most standards, being that I avoid harming others when I can, and occasionally go out of my way to be kind without any expectation of reward.

But, seeing as this is a discussion about whether or not deities exist that we are having, whether or not belief matters isn't relevant.

 

[Tellastory]

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

You may have a problem with Jesus then, because He validated the scripture when reproving the critics.

John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Jesus validated Noah's ark and the world wide flood that destroyed the rest of man kind as a warning of the fiery judgment that is coming on the earth as explained by Peter.

Jesus warned His disciples to be ready to leave or else be left behind at the pre trib rapture when a fire will come on the earth.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. 31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

Luke 12:40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not....46 The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.....49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

That is why Jesus reminded believers about Lot's wife as she did not want to leave her life in Sodom because she loved it there; her home, her neighbors; her friends; her everyday life in that city. It is the way life is now when there is no war on the saints that saints are supposed to be relying on Him to have them ready and willing to leave.

Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. 35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth. 36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

So who is going to believe that there is a fiery judgment coming on the earth if the readers understood that the global flood was just a fable to scare children to be good and to eat all their vegetables?

I'll take Jesus words over false science any day, especially when they are still in the dark, as they are NOW changing what they said was "true and factual" about macro evolution in being gradual over hundreds of millions of years to NOW being rapid due to huge gaps in the fossil records concerning supposed transitional fossils. Most of the fossil record support a rapid macro evolution as evidence coming out of the explosion in the fossil record that can only come about by a global flood as surmised by evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould. Course, he did not say how high that global flood was, but there are mass graves of fossilized whale bones with other fossilized marine life FOUND with fossilized land animals on mountain tops and valleys at various places all over the world. One such place is found at this link below in the news.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/u...n-andes-show-how-mountains-rose-from-sea.html

Nearly all of the fossils were embedded in surface rock and easy to pick up, he said. ''That was another great piece of luck, since we couldn't have brought in excavating equipment on horseback,'' he said. ''Best of all, despite weathering, many of the smallest fossils were remarkably intact and will be relatively easy to study.''

''For example,'' Dr. Novacek said, ''we found the oyster beds and sand dollars just beneath the lowest sediments containing land animals. At that point the water was shallow and receding rapidly - a time of transition from sea to land, as the land was thrust up by magma and the movement of tectonic plates.'' In more recent sediments, the group found species related to modern rodents, porcupines, rhinoceroses and camels. Among the many fossil curiosities they came across were ungulates (including a rabbit-like ungulate), marsupials and giant sloths.

As if mountains rose up suddenly all over the world. How convenient that land animals just wander up there to be fossilized with them. Like wow. Blind.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/china-cret...y-behind-mass-communal-graves-animals-1435192

Jehol Biota, an ancient northern China ecosystem, has mystified scientists for long. Researchers have been perplexed about how a wide variety of animals including dinosaurs, mammals, early birds and fishes were buried and preserved together as if in mass graves.

Oh yeah. If you can believe that one. So how did the fish get fossilized? Were they jealous and macro evolutionized themselves to get on land to join being burned with them in being fossilized or did that volcano happened at the time of the global flood?

Trust Jesus and His words, brother. When science have been calling something fact and true and then changed it again; that is what I call false science. They keep looking at all the evidence in respect to the evolution theory that has never been proven, when Bible believers know what they are looking at; evidence of a global flood.

Creationists may flounder in trying to deal with that false science in their ever changing terms, but Paul says to avoid it and just trust Jesus at His words.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

My mom believes all good people will go to heaven, regardless as to belief. Which is a nice sentiment, I suppose. I don't live a particularly immoral life by most standards, being that I avoid harming others when I can, and occasionally go out of my way to be kind without any expectation of reward.

But, seeing as this is a discussion about whether or not deities exist that we are having, whether or not belief matters isn't relevant.

Your belief in deities is irrelevant. The way you live your life is not. In reality since almost every person at that time believed in deities - the neighbor was one who believed in what Christians today would call a false god. Yet the one that believed in what they would call the true God wasn't the neighbor - but the one that believed in false gods was.

Contrary to what anyone claims there simply is no proof one way or another whether deities exist. But both evolution and Christianity teach the same thing - that life was formed from the dust of the earth. The only difference is one holds to the unscientific view of spontaneous generation of life coming from non-similar organisms, the other admits spontaneous generation is impossible and that all effects must have a cause. The oft cited excuse of random chance is still a miracle no matter how one wants to attempt to defend it. To one the cause is random events in a universe that follows laws so precisely we can virtually rule out randomness. The other admits that since spontaneous generation is impossible - there must have been a cause and admits to the possibility of a divine being.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think this bears repeating again - since things are getting off topic from the original post.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian and African mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian nor does the African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Husky does not evolve into the Chinook nor does the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

Brown bears mate with Brown bears and produce ONLY Brown bears, Bottle-nosed dolphin mate with Bottle-nosed dolphin and produce ONLY Bottle-nosed dolphin, This is true for every animal in existence.

The problem lies in interpretation. If evolutionists had never seen a dog and knew nothing about them and found fossils of the Mastiff and Husky and then later in the layer found fossils of the Chinook, they would insist that either the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. We know from direct observation this is not what occurred, even if the Chinook appears later in the record. Worse yet, they would insist the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook were all separate species - simply because their appearances were different. Just as they have done in the fossil record.

These:

are no different than these:

Merely different infraspecific taxa in the species or Kind to which they belong - not separate species. They have simply ignored the observational evidence when it came time to classify the fossil record and have incorrectly classified 90% of the creatures that existed as separate species.

Theistic evolution starts from the same incorrect assumptions in their desire to feel they are practicing science - when evolution has no basis in science to begin with - but is based upon the requirement that we ignore all observational evidence of how life propagates and variation occurs within the species.

The problem is some want to conform the data to their belief instead of conforming their belief to the data. I will repeat it again:

The problem lies in interpretation. If evolutionists had never seen a dog and knew nothing about them and found fossils of the Mastiff and Husky and then later in the layer found fossils of the Chinook, they would insist that either the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. We know from direct observation this is not what occurred, even if the Chinook appears later in the record. Worse yet, they would insist the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook were all separate species - simply because their appearances were different. Just as they have done in the fossil record.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Agreed, like trying to convince people finches are separate species when they interbreed and produce fertile offspring right in front of your eyes? All to escape from the reality that they are merely different infraspecific taxa within the species and their classification was an error by Darwin over 100+ years ago?

If Darwin made an error, feel free to correct it -- assuming of course, someone hasn't already beaten you to it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Your belief in deities is irrelevant. The way you live your life is not. In reality since almost every person at that time believed in deities - the neighbor was one who believed in what Christians today would call a false god. Yet the one that believed in what they would call the true God wasn't the neighbor - but the one that believed in false gods was.

I don't find whether or not I believe in deities to be personally irrelevant to me. I don't care really what other people believe, as long as it doesn't result in harm to me, others, or themselves.

Contrary to what anyone claims there simply is no proof one way or another whether deities exist.

I don't think I have ever seen a believer as astute as you say that. I'm a tad stunned.

But both evolution and Christianity teach the same thing - that life was formed from the dust of the earth.

Evolution says nothing on the origins of life; that's abiogenesis. Evolution is just how life changes, not came to be. Also, abiogenesis doesn't show life coming from dust, but liquid bound organic compounds such as proteins.

The only difference is one holds to the unscientific view of spontaneous generation of life coming from non-similar organisms, the other admits spontaneous generation is impossible and that all effects must have a cause. The oft cited excuse of random chance is still a miracle no matter how one wants to attempt to defend it. To one the cause is random events in a universe that follows laws so precisely we can virtually rule out randomness. The other admits that since spontaneous generation is impossible - there must have been a cause and admits to the possibility of a divine being.

Except then where did the divine being come from? Even if you were right, and life could not arise naturally on its own, shoving a deity in as an explanation complicates it even further rather than being a solution. Furthermore, the universe, life, etc. wouldn't have to be created by a deity for deities to exist, and they aren't any more or less possible if abiogenesis is valid.