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

[PsychoSarah]

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.

You do know that the bible claims all human races resulted from diversification from a very small number of people, right?

 

[Hieronymus]

Most atheists are agnostic.

No, they're not the same.

 

[46AND2]

No, they're not the same.

They aren't the same, but they aren't mutually exclusive, either.

I am agnostic...meaning, I don't KNOW if god exists.

I am also atheistic...meaning, I don't BELIEVE god exists

agnostic atheist--neither knows, nor believes god exists
gnostic athiest--does not believe god exists, and claims to know this

agnostic theist--believes god exists, but doesn't claim know for sure
gnostic theist--believes god exists, and claims to know this

 

[Hieronymus]

They aren't the same, but they aren't mutually exclusive, either.

I am agnostic...meaning, I don't KNOW if god exists.

I am also atheistic...meaning, I don't BELIEVE god exists

agnostic atheist--neither knows, nor believes god exists
gnostic athiest--does not believe god exists, and claims to know this

agnostic theist--believes god exists, but doesn't claim know for sure
gnostic theist--believes god exists, and claims to know this

Then how would you call people that are convinced God does not exist?

 

[46AND2]

Then how would you call people that are convinced God does not exist?

One can be convinced of something either through knowledge, or belief, so the answer to your question is that this person could be either an agnostic atheist or gnostic atheist, depending on whether he/she claims knowledge.

 

[Hieronymus]

I'm wondering about the conviction that God does not exist.
Many people claim God does not exist.
These are indeed atheists, it's what atheism is, it implies conviction of naturalism and or materialism.
It doesn't necessarily have to do with (lack of) evidence.

By the way,
a gnostic is usually someone who believes in the gnostic doctrines / views.
An agnostic is not convinced, he doesn't know.
An agnosticist is someone who is convinced these things can not be known or understood anyway.
(i wonder though if they can be certain about that... )

 

[bhsmte]

Then how would you call people that are convinced God does not exist?

Few and far between and hard atheists.

The vast majority of atheists i have seen on this site (myself included) dont claim a god could not exist, they simply state; they dont believe a god exists.

 

[Hieronymus]

Ah, those would be the agnostic atheists 46AND2 was talking about.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, those would be the agnostic atheists 46AND2 was talking about.

Which compromise, the vast majority of atheists.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

1. You are not Hindu and neither am I. This is specifically and agnostic - vs - Christian discussion.

2. We both know that your statement is false - as it has already been pointed out to you that no other religion claims that it is "evil" or "wrong" to believe that Christ was good - and that we should follow his teaching. (excluding Satanists of course).

You are simply grasping at straws -- and have circled back to this again ... without addressing the point that debunks it.

As a seeker, you know I am more than open to the possibility a deity/deities exist, but without evidence for it, .

"As if" you had evidence that a pile of dirt will eventually turn into a horse... but have no evidence that the various systems built into the horse happened by design and not by "direction as dictated from a predecessor pile of dirt". Thus your claim is hard to take seriously.

And given that the "risk" in that "a pile of dirt is the mastermind behind living systems" mythology - is that the Word of God - is true "instead" and the lake of fire is the doom for those who reject the Gospel, it is "more than merely reasonable" to take up the Christian Gospel and try out the 'way of escape' -- instead of clinging to the "pile of dirt" mythology.

You have chosen maximum risk combined with minimum benefit ALL because you "want us to believe" that it is so clear to you that a pile of dirt can turn into a horse or a rabbit.

 

[BobRyan]

You do know that the bible claims all human races resulted from diversification from a very small number of people, right?

2 - to be precise.

y-chromosome Adam.
Mitochondrial Eve.

Rather than "all coming from a pile of dirt".

 

[Subduction Zone]

2 - to be precise.

y-chromosome Adam.
Mitochondrial Eve.

Rather than "all coming from a pile of dirt".

Wrong, even at the times of y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve there were thousands of people. And they did not live at the same time. There were never only two human beings.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You have chosen maximum risk combined with minimum benefit ALL because you "want us to believe" that it is so clear to you that a pile of dirt can turn into a horse or a rabbit.

 

[TLK Valentine]

1. You are not Hindu and neither am I. This is specifically and agnostic - vs - Christian discussion.

It's also a discussion about events (presumably) in the real world -- and in the real world, there are more belief systems than "agnostic" and "Christian."

It's entirely possible that any of them -- or perhaps none of them -- are correct.

2. We both know that your statement is false - as it has already been pointed out to you that no other religion claims that it is "evil" or "wrong" to believe that Christ was good - and that we should follow his teaching. (excluding Satanists of course).

Why exclude them?

Besides, I, for one, wish more people would follow Christs' teachings... starting with Christians.

You have chosen maximum risk combined with minimum benefit ALL because you "want us to believe" that it is so clear to you that a pile of dirt can turn into a horse or a rabbit.

Whereas you, on the other hand, have chosen minimum risk combined with maximum benefit... you don't care about truth; you're just playing the odds.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

1. You are not Hindu and neither am I. This is specifically and agnostic - vs - Christian discussion.

2. We both know that your statement is false - as it has already been pointed out to you that no other religion claims that it is "evil" or "wrong" to believe that Christ was good - and that we should follow his teaching. (excluding Satanists of course).

You are simply grasping at straws -- and have circled back to this again ... without addressing the point that debunks it.

As a seeker, you know I am more than open to the possibility a deity/deities exist, but without evidence for it, .

"As if" you had evidence that a pile of dirt will eventually turn into a horse... but have no evidence that the various systems built into the horse happened by design and not by "direction as dictated from a predecessor pile of dirt". Thus your claim is hard to take seriously.

And given that the "risk" in that "a pile of dirt is the mastermind behind living systems" mythology - is that the Word of God - is true "instead" and the lake of fire is the doom for those who reject the Gospel, it is "more than merely reasonable" to take up the Christian Gospel and try out the 'way of escape' -- instead of clinging to the "pile of dirt" mythology.

You have chosen maximum risk combined with minimum benefit ALL because you "want us to believe" that it is so clear to you that a pile of dirt can turn into a horse or a rabbit.

It's also a discussion about events (presumably) in the real world --

Indeed and in the real world - rabbits do NOT come from a pile of dirt... neither do horses.

All such mythology - simply fails the test of the "real world".

Whereas you, on the other hand, have chosen minimum risk combined with maximum benefit... you don't care about truth; you're just playing the odds.

Indeed I am pointing out that EVEN if you could not figure that rabbits do not come from a pile of dirt - you should at least have noticed that the "pile of dirt does everything" religion is the WORST of all options.

and in the real world, there are more belief systems than "agnostic" and "Christian."

But in the "real world" you have come to a Christian discussion forum -- so this IS indeed an "Agnostic" or "Christian" context. ... in the 'real world'.

It's entirely possible that any of them -- or perhaps none of them -- are correct.

None of those outcomes is WORSE than the atheist/agnostic one.

Why exclude them?

ALL of them allow for following Christ -- except for some ancient forms of emperor worship and satanism.

So "again" it is total nonsense and "fluff" that is being argued as the "Alternative".

 

[Hieronymus]

Wrong, even at the times of y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve there were thousands of people. And they did not live at the same time. There were never only two human beings.

No,the evidence shows otherwise, or let's say that a different scenario (the Biblical one) is supported by the evidence.

 

[BobRyan]

Wrong, even at the times of y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve there were thousands of people.

No there weren't.

But wait a minute!! By your mythology -- you have to then "imagine" that those "thousands of people" were meticulously wiped out!! Yes EVERY STRAIN that does not have the ONE mitochondrial Eve and the ONE y-chromosome Adam magically deleted to get the present outcome!!!

What a horrific leap of blind faith!!!

A "trick" not very unlike the trick for getting dirt to turn into rabbit.

Blatantly obvious flaw in the blind faith religion we know of as "evolutionism" which is as noted previously "the worst of all choices, the worst of all risk, the worst of all benefits"

 

[Hieronymus]

You do know that the bible claims all human races resulted from diversification from a very small number of people, right?

Correct.
You think they will grow wings though?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Indeed and in the real world - rabbits do NOT come from a pile of dirt... neither do horses.

All such mythology - simply fails the test of the "real world".

I couldn't agree more; all such mythology fails the test:

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

None of those outcomes is WORSE than the atheist/agnostic one.

But shouldn't we be looking at possible outcomes based on which ones are more likely to be true, instead of which ones are better or worse?

ALL of them allow for following Christ -- except for some ancient forms of emperor worship and satanism.

Is such tolerance reciprocated? Does Christ extend the same courtesy when it comes to following other beliefs?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Correct.
You think they will grow wings though?

Don't you? Or will we simply be able to fly without them?