DO A GOOD DEED! If you can converrt me, DO IT PLEASE!

[DongTanks]

I am often in a dilema, of whether or not to adhere myself to Christianity. Scientific knowledge can usually destroy any religious claims surprisingly effectively, and the lack of intelligent inidviduals that can convince me of His existence is a major contriubtion to my state of dilema.

I am a seeker. If you can convince me of His existence, you will have done a good deed, for you will have saved me from damnation, and I will thank you.

You might want to take note that the benefits of adhering to the Christianity religion (as in spiritual release and such) is not relevant to this thread, as what I want to achieve aren't the benefits, buit the ability for me to make the CORRECT and SENSIBLE CHOICE of whther to abide to this religion.

Atheist are welcome to dissuade me the way of Christianity too. All that matters is that you can help me make the right choice.

 

[No1jack]

Ok first question would have to be do you have any family or friends that are christians?

Then, you say that scientific knowledge can usually destroy any religious claims, but science of the past is also just a theory, they assume in theory the solar system began from a BIG BANG, and that would explain how the stars are moving at great speed and distance away from a central point,I can accept that, but science has yet to proove how this big bang occured, the beginning of time is beyond our current knowledge and at the moment religion is seemingly ahead in that sense.

Then comes science's theory on how us humans arrived, we apparently evoled from monocell creatures millions of years ago, by some sort of mishap of liquids coming together, they're views are a little sketchy in my eyes, how we could possibly have evolved from monocell creatures to become what we are now. Hearts that continuously pump 24 hours a day 7 days a week for years on end, science cant build a machine that can do that for such a long period of time or to be as small as our human heart.

I havent long been a christian myself so you may find my arguments a load of nonsense and thats fine, I just think there's alot more to being a christian than believing in God, ok that plays a substantial part in it, but theres also the being kind to others, looking after you're friends and family, being modest, putting the need of others before the needs of your own, and just being constantly at peace knowing that you have the big man in the sky on your side. It's a good feeling, and people start to notice when you are seemingly alot nicer that you used to be and begin to respect you alot more.

All this waffle probably didnt help, but you dont get anywhere unless you try

 

[JohnDB]

Being a "Christian" isn't about "What is in it for me?".
The behavior of a Christian isn't easy or beneficial in this life at all.
It is more about taking the less chosen path and making the more difficult decisions regularly.

I can't talk you into anything. I am not here to debate.
If you wish to follow theories of science and put all of your faith in a group of people I can't change your mind.
I do know this though; one day that group of people who searched out the natural laws that God set up (science) will get a chance to meet the Maker of those laws.
I do find DNA facinating though...it does disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. DNA does show that organisms degenerate instead of evolving. Science also shows that many of the stars in the sky really aren't there...they are just light from a star/planet that doesn't exist currently...and people have worshipped them thousands of years ago. (they didn't even exist then)

And as far as a "good deed" goes...I don't need any to gain entrance into Heaven...my access was granted to me by faith.

 

[salida]

Lets ask ourselves what is science? Where did science come from? We know that science consists of laws like the law if gravity, thermodynamics and this list continues. Did these laws come from man? Did man create these laws? No, he applied theory to what he has observed in the universe. So, here comes in the discussion of intelligent design - its being ushered in with these scientific laws in mind. It would take an all powerful God to create all this. Also, the human body cell is extremely complicated- there is DNA, and then there are components in the cell that transcribe, slice and truncate the DNA. This is just the "beginning" of this biochemical process- the tip of the tip of the iceberg in the cell. The point: intelligent design.

Then there is the cause and effect dilemma. We see the effect by looking around at our environment (creation). Did something come from nothing?

You mentioned science and religion. Please tell me how they are at odds with each other? They compliment each other. And christianity? Once you start talking christianity you start bring the Bible into it; and yes, there is so much evidence that verifies it- not because I said so. There is more evidence of it than any book in the world. It could only be written by God because of its attributes - the most interesting is that there is hundreds of detailed prophesies that has been fulfilled and more will be. Yes, I can discuss this here also but it would be quit lengthly as its very detailed.

*I suggest you visit this site: It has a list of famous scientists who had a religious background.
www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html
www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

And maybe check out www.reasons.org, The Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell(evidence of the bible that would stand up in a court of law without a shadow of a doubt) and The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel(former athiest).

Seriously, I can't "convince" you but God does this as I'm not all powerful. No one ever got talked into being a christian as its a lifelong commitment and lifestyle. Actually, many times I don't think of it as a religion as religion can be filled with dogma and legalism which I strongly dislike. Remember Jesus has some interesting conversations with the Pharisees in the gospels.

What do you consider evidence? Like evidence of Noah's flood or how we came from Adam? Some people you give them a lot of evidence and they say, "is this your evidence!" I guess they want God to appear to them in person - they wouldn't be able to live to tell about it. I would do the research and homework myself until I was satisfied also.

 

[Chaplain David]

subscribe

 

[DongTanks]

Ok first question would have to be do you have any family or friends that are christians?

Then, you say that scientific knowledge can usually destroy any religious claims, but science of the past is also just a theory, they assume in theory the solar system began from a BIG BANG, and that would explain how the stars are moving at great speed and distance away from a central point,I can accept that, but science has yet to proove how this big bang occured, the beginning of time is beyond our current knowledge and at the moment religion is seemingly ahead in that sense.

Then comes science's theory on how us humans arrived, we apparently evoled from monocell creatures millions of years ago, by some sort of mishap of liquids coming together, they're views are a little sketchy in my eyes, how we could possibly have evolved from monocell creatures to become what we are now. Hearts that continuously pump 24 hours a day 7 days a week for years on end, science cant build a machine that can do that for such a long period of time or to be as small as our human heart.

I havent long been a christian myself so you may find my arguments a load of nonsense and thats fine, I just think there's alot more to being a christian than believing in God, ok that plays a substantial part in it, but theres also the being kind to others, looking after you're friends and family, being modest, putting the need of others before the needs of your own, and just being constantly at peace knowing that you have the big man in the sky on your side. It's a good feeling, and people start to notice when you are seemingly alot nicer that you used to be and begin to respect you alot more.

All this waffle probably didnt help, but you dont get anywhere unless you try

Anyway, there is, in fact, evidence for the big bang, when its echo was heard as cosmic background radiation (uhhh....I couldn't send you the link to the article, since I do not have a post count of 50 or greater).

Doesn't the story of God commanding the creation of the universe sounds like David Copperfield doing his hocus pocus? Therefore, when you say 'religion is seemingly ahead in that sense', you are not quite correct, as it is not more logical than the Big Bang Theory, which is indeed a more plausible explanation since it is supported by evidence, but the other is not.

Also, you said:
"how we could possibly have evolved from monocell creatures to become what we are now. Hearts that continuously pump 24 hours a day 7 days a week for years on end, science cant build a machine that can do that for such a long period of time or to be as small as our human heart."

The question is: How could we not possibly have evolved from monocell creatures to complicated intelligent [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? It is totally possible, if circumstances allow. It is all nature's work. The explanation is simple and logical.

Haha. I think it does not matter if you have long been a Christian or not, as long as you have put in your heart and soul in the mission to spread your religious faith to me. You are a good soul

You said:
"theres also the being kind to others, looking after you're friends and family, being modest, putting the need of others before the needs of your own, and just being constantly at peace knowing that you have the big man in the sky on your side. It's a good feeling, and people start to notice when you are seemingly alot nicer that you used to be and begin to respect you alot more."

I am not a Christian, for I am still a seeker, but still, I don't sound like a nasty person, do I? That is why I do not think that abiding to Christianity will make me a better person, for I already am a good person.

But people thinks that when you are a Christian, you are a better person, and so they often treat me as a bad person

 

[DongTanks]

Being a "Christian" isn't about "What is in it for me?".
The behavior of a Christian isn't easy or beneficial in this life at all.
It is more about taking the less chosen path and making the more difficult decisions regularly.

I can't talk you into anything. I am not here to debate.
If you wish to follow theories of science and put all of your faith in a group of people I can't change your mind.
I do know this though; one day that group of people who searched out the natural laws that God set up (science) will get a chance to meet the Maker of those laws.
I do find DNA facinating though...it does disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. DNA does show that organisms degenerate instead of evolving. Science also shows that many of the stars in the sky really aren't there...they are just light from a star/planet that doesn't exist currently...and people have worshipped them thousands of years ago. (they didn't even exist then)

And as far as a "good deed" goes...I don't need any to gain entrance into Heaven...my access was granted to me by faith.

Thanks JohnDB.

Well, you don't have to worry, for I have no intention of starting a debate, all I really want to is pose some questions, and for you to answer them, so as to let me come to a good decision, so be rest assured that will be little or no hostility (I am not an atheist..... worst I can go is to being an agnostic, so do not worry )

You said 'Being a "Christian" isn't about "What is in it for me?".'

I know it isn't, I just want to know if it is the 'right choice'. Like I have said, I am not into the benefits of being a Christian.

You also said 'It is more about taking the less chosen path and making the more difficult decisions regularly.'

If that difficult decision is the right decision (I have to emphasize on the word 'right'), I will make sure when I comes to the end of my spiritual seeking journey, I will be making tha decision. But if it is not the right decision, well... then it does not matter if it is a difficult decision or not, agree?

Also, Darwin's theory isn't the only thing used to discredit religion, instead, it is logic itself that discredits religion.

And you also said 'Science also shows that many of the stars in the sky really aren't there...they are just light from a star/planet that doesn't exist currently...and people have worshipped them thousands of years ago. (they didn't even exist then)'

Are you trying to discredit religion, that what we may believe in Christianity now may be proved wrong in the future? Oh no, I am a confused, lost soul if I have actually misunderstood your point!

Lastly, you said 'And as far as a "good deed" goes...I don't need any to gain entrance into Heaven...my access was granted to me by faith. '

I have one last question for you: Can we gain entrance into heaven even if I have no faith? I dare say, I am a good person, and sure thing He will not reject a good, but lost, soul a ticket to heaven?

 

[DongTanks]

Thanks Salida,

You said:
"Lets ask ourselves what is science? Where did science come from? We know that science consists of laws like the law if gravity, thermodynamics and this list continues. Did these laws come from man? Did man create these laws? No, he applied theory to what he has observed in the universe. So, here comes in the discussion of intelligent design - its being ushered in with these scientific laws in mind. It would take an all powerful God to create all this. Also, the human body cell is extremely complicated- there is DNA, and then there are components in the cell that transcribe, slice and truncate the DNA. This is just the "beginning" of this biochemical process- the tip of the tip of the iceberg in the cell. The point: intelligent design."

Don't you think these are the work of nature? I hoe you can enlighten me on why 'intelligent design' can be a more plausible reason than this whole thing being purely naturalistic, which is a simpler explnanation. I myself cannot decide which is the right reason, but the simpler reason is the more plausible reason, isn't it? Can you help me in solving this confusion?

I agree with you that something should not come from nothing, but is God something? Where did He come from then, and what about His creator, if there is one? (*grabbing my head and moaning at the complexity of it all)

I agree with you also that science can compliment religion, but it can also be used to discredit religion. It is a tool and it depends on how the tool-user wields it. No matter if it compliments or discredit religion, it is an effective tool for it tends to lead people to the truth through logical reasoning. Again, it depends on how you want to use this tool call 'science'.

But there is one thing I have to disagree with you upon. You said, "there is hundreds of detailed prophesies that has been fulfilled and more will be". The prophecies are written in a vague language and we have to more or less guess what it really means, so we cannot know for sure if any prophecies were fulfilled at all. Also, while many prophecies may be fullfilled, there are some which are wrong, and one of them is about 1999 being the end of the world - it caused such a hoo ha!

And I also believe that you can convince me into choosing Christianity as my religion, since tihs should be your mission, and the mission of all Christians, isn't it, or am I wrong (oops)? You do not have to worry about not being able to convince me since I am all ears to your persuasion, and you have my open mind. When I present a countering factor against your points, I am not argueing with you, but it is because I am keeping an open mind, I must keep my mind open not only to the Christians's point of view, but also the non-Christians, in order for me to make the right choice.

Once again, you are another kind soul, salida. May God bless you.

 

[70x7]

I dont think any of us can "convince" you to be a christian or not. Do an honest search for God and open your heart. You will either listen or you won't. Being a christian isn't an attempt to please man, but is a commitment to Jesus.

 

[DongTanks]

Ok....?

 

[DongTanks]

Thanks soul biscuit,

Note: I am not against atheism, nor am I against theism - but I am in a neutral stand point. I am just someone who hopes to seek answers. That is why when I agree with soul's points, I am not supporting atheism, nor am I anti-antheism when I disagree with his points.

First off, I want everyone to understand that the post I'm about to make is not to dissuade anyone from persuading DongTanks to turn to Christ. There are plenty of devout Christians who recognize why Intelligent Design fails as an explanation for the universe.

Anything is fine, as long as someone can give me answers - as long as it is the right answer.

Why? What empirical evidence can you point to to show that the universe could only have been created by God? What falsifiable hypotheses can you formulate about how God created the universe?

That is why He is called God, isn't it - He comes, silent and invisible, and He left, silent and invisible as well, but leaving behind a universe....

This simply does not follow. Sand grains are often found sorted quite neatly in nature, with large heavy grains on the bottom and small, lightweight grains on the top. No intelligent agent is needed to produce this phenomenon. All that is necessary is the natural movement of water and air.

The same is true of organic complexity. Its existence is explained perfectly by natural selection. No other agent need be posited.

Actually, according to quantum mechanics, what may be the 'laws of physics' in our universe may not be equivalent to that of other universes - that is why, maybe there could be someone up there (probaby some David Copperfield from another higher dimension) who had made the laws that results in the 'natural movement of air and water' and the process of 'natural selection' for our universe in particular? We do not know, for as I had said, He is omnipotent, and he leaves no evidence or whatsoever that claims that he created the universe and the laws that govern it.

We accept the laws of our univers as natural, probably because our brains are wired to do so?

As He left no evidence of his presence, except for a Bible, we cannot proof His existence, nor His non-existence.

The cause and effect dilemma doesn't end there. If God made the universe, what made God? If we see an effect (God) do we need to look for a cause?

If not, why not? If God doesn't need to come from somewhere, why does the universe?

This is something common that have always been pointed out by atheist - but, since God is omnipotent, I am sure he works in ways that are incomprehensible by our simple minds, if he even exists in the first place (I don't know!).

I'd be interested to see what science you think is verified by the Bible. The same is often said of the Qu'ran.

Thanks for pointing that out - that is what I want to know too!

There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, and there is no evidence that at any time in Earth's history there were only two humans. The scientific problems with both those ideas could feel encyclopediae.

Is there no evidence, or are the evidence yet to be discovered?

Well, my eyes are always open, in case God decides to show himself to me.

I hope by then, it is not too late. Good luck.

 

[JohnDB]

OK...
Your thoughts on God are rather small...The God I worship is much too big and is actually infinate.

Jesus, (the son or smallest part of God) was the agent by with which creation of the universe was caused and completed...Yes, same one as was crucified. (I am sure you have heard about that)

You also mentioned something else in an earlier post. Jesus charged the Apostles with making disciples...not believers. There is a world of difference between the two. One already believes and the other doesn't...obviously.

God, the One who made my and your existance possible, must then be also infinately good. Holiness is the term used for it...and because it is similar in effect as a force of nature there are certain things that characterizes holiness.
Holiness isn't just an absense of error or perfection...it also contains within it a positive reaction to error. We, as sinful mankind, cannot exist without some kind of protection from this degree of Holiness that characterizes God. We, for a time, have been granted some limited protection here on Earth in the fact that there is a separation from the full presence of God here amongst us. If this separation did not exist none of mankind would continue in existance...the factor of Holiness that surrounds God would instantly destroy us....Enter Jesus...
He is the One who protects us from God's holiness. (Same one who personally created the Universe and was Crucified) He is our protection.

Now because God is good (holy) He has made a manner in which you can be redeemed and defy the "logic" of most of mankind (which is in error) and not be destroyed along with the rest of them. We were created to live forever and to love, cherish, and honor our Creator...which is in our own best interests as well. The choice is yours.

 

[aiki]

Originally Posted by soul_biscuit

First off, I want everyone to understand that the post I'm about to make is not to dissuade anyone from persuading DongTanks to turn to Christ. There are plenty of devout Christians who recognize why Intelligent Design fails as an explanation for the universe.
​

Anything is fine, as long as someone can give me answers - as long as it is the right answer.

But what is the right answer? How will you know when you come across it? What if the right answer is one that goes against everything you are predisposed to believe? How will you transcend all your presuppositions, prejudices and biases so that you may clearly assess what answers come your way? I think the reality is that you can't -- and neither can anyone else. This is why, in part, the Bible teaches that being convinced that God is and that He has a purpose in creating each one of us is something only ultimately He can do. Only God can pierce the wall of selfish prejudices and false presuppositions that obscure Him from us. God may use the answers people give you on this thread or He may not. In the end, He is the One who will persuade you (or not). Consequently, I would urge you to be sincerely asking God to reveal Himself to you at the same time as you ask us here to give you reason to believe.

That is why He is called God, isn't it - He comes, silent and invisible, and He left, silent and invisible as well, but leaving behind a universe....

The Bible teaches that God hasn't left. The Universe in which we live isn't some divine spoor of God's passing.

Actually, according to quantum mechanics, what may be the 'laws of physics' in our universe may not be equivalent to that of other universes - that is why, maybe there could be someone up there (probaby some David Copperfield from another higher dimension) who had made the laws that results in the 'natural movement of air and water' and the process of 'natural selection' for our universe in particular? We do not know, for as I had said, He is omnipotent, and he leaves no evidence or whatsoever that claims that he created the universe and the laws that govern it.

Why posit this fiction at all? Why even suggest that there is a higher-dimension "David Copperfield" who is responsible for our universe? How is that somehow better than the simple, straightforward explanation that God made everything? To me, your Copperfield idea requires far more blind faith than anything the Bible puts forward.

We accept the laws of our univers as natural, probably because our brains are wired to do so?

If that were true, there would be no concept of God.

As He left no evidence of his presence, except for a Bible, we cannot proof His existence, nor His non-existence.

Evidence for God is all around you. How you interpret that evidence is the real issue. It isn't like Christians use different scientific facts than the atheist; they simply begin with different presuppositions than those of the evolutionist, or naturalist, and/or atheist and so arrive at a different conclusion concerning what the facts indicate.

Usually, not seeing God isn't a matter of evidence but of a willingness to submit to His authority.

SoulBiscuit wrote:

The cause and effect dilemma doesn't end there. If God made the universe, what made God? If we see an effect (God) do we need to look for a cause?

If not, why not? If God doesn't need to come from somewhere, why does the universe?

Dong Tanks wrote:

This is something common that have always been pointed out by atheist - but, since God is omnipotent, I am sure he works in ways that are incomprehensible by our simple minds, if he even exists in the first place (I don't know!).

Firstly, Soul Biscuit is confusing two disparate things here: God and the Universe. By definition, God is not what He has made. He is, by definition, outside the constraints of the laws of the Universe. In other words, He exists causeless while the Universe does not.

A pot made by a Potter is bound by what it is. It cannot walk about, or speak, or think. But this doesn't mean that the Potter is identical in nature to the pot he has made. Far from it! It is the very fact that he is quite unlike the pot he has made that makes it possible for him to have created it. Likewise, for God to be the Creator of the Universe requires that He be far different in nature from what He has made.

Secondly, how can you "be sure," Dong Tanks, that "God is omnipotent" and "works in incomprehensible ways" when you don't know if He exists at all? Do you not see the inconsistency in this? It sounds to me like you actually do believe there is a God but are trying to quell some doubts and/or establish a rational basis for holding such a belief.

I'd be interested to see what science you think is verified by the Bible. The same is often said of the Qu'ran.
​

Thanks for pointing that out - that is what I want to know too!

The Bible is not a scientific text; its purpose isn't scientific but spiritual. However, where the Bible and science directly intersect, the Bible is perfectly accurate -- depending on your presuppositions.

Peace to you.

 

[salida]

Ok, DongTanks; here is your scientific information. If I gave you all of it they wouldn't like this as its pages and pages. This is a start. Also, give you some biblical information concerning bible - again not all of it but a start.

This proof is discussed in three parts which make up the whole.

Evolutionists make three claims to support their position that things do change over time. The claims are: that genetic information changes beneficially by random chance over time; that natural selection and survival of the fittest are driving these mutational changes “upward” to produce greater intelligence and complexity; and, that the adaptation of species to new environments demonstrates evolution at work.

Genetics

Evolutionists say that biological life forms change in an “upward” direction, becoming more and more complex, through spontaneous mutation of genetic information. However, the word mutation means by definition “copying error.” A mutation is a structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from the parents. Mutations are errors in copying the genetic codes.

You may copy something perfectly or imperfectly, but you cannot copy something more perfectly. If we copy something perfectly, then there is no change from one generation to the next. If we copy something imperfectly, then the information is degraded or corrupted and the next generation will suffer from the imperfections of the copying processes.

Gene pools contain lots of information but “new” genes, that are “new pieces of information,” are never produced. New information does not come into existence without the input from a greater outside intelligence. Mutations are random and not directed. Mutations affect and are affected by many genes and other intergenic information acting in combination with one another. Neither is new information produced simply from an input of undirected energy.

The addition of excess undirected energy will accomplish nothing beneficial; it will destroy the previously existing system. For example: if a computer designed to operate on 110 volt electricity is plugged into a 220 volt power supply it will destroy the computer. But, all that we did was to add excess undirected energy into the computers’ system.

The Laws of Genetics are conservative, not creative; these laws only allow for the copying or rearranging of previously existing information which is then passed on in new combinations to the next generation. Even ardent evolutionists like, Dr. Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University, Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History, have admitted that there are no transitional life forms found in the fossil record. None!

Random mutations produce microevolution, which is only variation within a created kind. Random mutations cannot produce macroevolution, which would be the supposed change from one kind into a different kind.

Genetic research which has attempted to force spontaneous mutations has proven to be futile in producing beneficial mutations. Evolutionists cannot adequately answer the question: “Where did the original information that is being copied come from?”

Since 1910, over 3,000 mutations in Fruit Flies have been documented, yet there is no documentation of a Fruit Fly evolving into something else.

Do things change over time?

Consider ants, horseshoe crabs, bats or algae. Many ant species appear in amber from the Dominican Republic, which evolutionists claim is 25 to 40 million years old. Yet they look exactly the same as they do today. Fossil horseshoe crabs claimed to be 150 million years old are identical to those found alive. The oldest skeleton of a fossil bat, dated as Eocene by evolutionists and supposedly 50 million years old, looks exactly like the skeleton of modern bats. The “oldest” fossils found on earth are said to be blue-green algae colonies one billion years old; yet these fossil colonies seem to be duplicates of living colonies.

There has been an often touted story told by evolutionists about the supposed evolutionary changes that occurred in the English Peppered Moth. They declared that this story “proved” that evolution could be seen at work in nature.

The story goes something like this. During the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century, the English Peppered Moth changed from a mixed population of individuals that were mostly white with black specks and fewer black individuals with white specks to a population that was mostly black with only a few white. The idea was that coal burning had darkened the tree trunks and buildings in England and that the white individuals stood out against the dark background and the black individuals were camouflaged; thus, whiter individuals were eliminated by birds eating them first and the black were protected and they propagated an ever larger percentage of the total population.

The story is, however, a total hoax! In the 1950’s, a British physician, Bernard Kettlewell, wanted to try to prove that evolution was true and that natural selection was at work in nature as Darwin had believed. In order to get his proof he tried to release English Peppered Moths during the day near trees with bark of various colors. He wrote an article for the Scientific American magazine and declared that his experiment was evidence of Darwin’s predictions. His article has become the foundation of hundreds of textbook references to evolution at work in nature.

In the 1980’s evidence was given that this story is a hoax. First, English Peppered Moths are nocturnal and do not fly around during the day when birds might see them. Dr. Kettlewell had to wake the moths up, and in their confusion of seeing daylight, more landed on him than on the nearby trees. Second, the Moths do not land on the trunks of trees where they might be seen by predators (if they were out in the daytime) because they live in the canopies of trees where they are well hidden. Third, the photographs of these moths sitting on tree trunks and reproduced in countless textbooks were staged. The moths were actually dead and had to be glued onto the trees in order to take the now famous photographs.

What does the English Peppered Moth teach us about natural selection? They demonstrate the fixity of species and the natural and easily understood lateral adaptation allowed within a gene pool, fully consistent with the creationist position. The structure of the moth did not change over time. This moth illustrates lateral adaptation, not progressive evolution.

 

[salida]

Biblical Evidence (Scratching the Surface Only)

Internal Evidences
Prophesies that are confirmed within Bible

- Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10 - Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Luke's time period is 60-70 AD)

Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5 -Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60-70 AD)

Born of a Virgin, Isaiah 7:14/Matt 1:18-23
(Isaiah 760 to 698 BC)/(60-70 AD)

**I can list at least 20 more of these.
-Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 - four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek - Daniel 8:21, 10:20) and a fourth great kingdom to follow - part iron and clay - which is the Roman Empire - during this empire Christ came and the church was established - Daniel 2:44.

-Historical Accuracy
The Bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago, yet has not been proven incorrect on any.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament - starts at 25 years - between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years
Caesar - at 1000 years

Number of Manuscript Copies
New Testament - 5,686
Homer - 643
Demosthenes - 200
Plato - 7
Caesar - 10

Consistency
Written by at least 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years, and has no internal inconsistencies.

Claim of Inspiration
It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Tim 3:16-17). No other religious book makes such claims.

External Evidences
(Prophesies Outside the Bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never be built again.
Nineveh - Nahum 1:10, 3:7,15, Zephaniah 2:13-14
Babylon - Isaiah 13:1-22)
Tyre (Ezekiel 26:1-28)

Bible before Science
He hangs the earth on nothing - Job 26:7
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago - some scholars think it could be even 3000 years ago)
Note: Man only knew this for 350 years
Earth is a sphere, Isaiah 40:22
Air has weight, Job 28:25
Gravity - Job 26:7, Job 38:31-33
Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6

Documents that Prove Bible is True
Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles

Archealogoical Finds
Excavations of Ur, Location of Zoar, Ziggurats and the foundation of Tower of Babel

 

[salida]

I hope this helps your journey. Feel free to email.

 

[DongTanks]

JohnDB, your explanation regarding holiness killing us sinners in rays of light made me utterly speechless. Wow..... but how do you know these stuffs?

We were created to live forever and to love, cherish, and honor our Creator...which is in our own best interests as well. The choice is yours.

I find contradiction in your sentence, and I hope you won't mind me pointing it out. If we were really created to honor the creator, why should there be a choice in the first place? There will only be one option, that is to honor the creator, since we are created to do so - but that is simply not the case. Why I am not created this way, while you are?[/quote]

I think that is a very important question I have just posted. Please enlighten me on that issue, and thanks for spending your time to lead me in my spiritual journey.

Now, on to aiki,

Why posit this fiction at all? Why even suggest that there is a higher-dimension "David Copperfield" who is responsible for our universe? How is that somehow better than the simple, straightforward explanation that God made everything? To me, your Copperfield idea requires far more blind faith than anything the Bible puts forward.

Aiki, you might want to note my stand point on this issue – when I am addressing soul_biscuit (who claimed himself to be an atheist), I am refuting his explanation about His non-existence, so in this case, I am taking your stand point.

The David Copperfield explanation is not more complicated than the God explanation – for both are the same explanation, where someone created something. That’s all I want to point out! Instead of using the word ‘God’, I just replace it with the name ‘David Copperfield’. Nothing to argue or be aggressive about in your case, but perhaps, not soul_biscuit – you see, that post is directed at him, not you!

Also, I said, “We accept the laws of our univers as natural, probably because our brains are wired to do so?”

And you replied with, “If that were true, there would be no concept of God.”

And I ask you: WHY?

Evidence for God is all around you. How you interpret that evidence is the real issue.

I guess I am really an ignorant fool. Can you give me a few evidence or examples? I will gladly thank you for your help.

Secondly, how can you "be sure," Dong Tanks, that "God is omnipotent" and "works in incomprehensible ways" when you don't know if He exists at all? Do you not see the inconsistency in this? It sounds to me like you actually do believe there is a God but are trying to quell some doubts and/or establish a rational basis for holding such a belief.

Wait a second, you confuse me! I say God is omnipotent because you theists said so, didn’t you guys?

The Bible is not a scientific text; its purpose isn't scientific but spiritual. However, where the Bible and science directly intersect, the Bible is perfectly accurate -- depending on your presuppositions.

That is what both soul_biscuit and I want to know – where are the parts when science directly intersects? You have to answer our question by showing some examples!

Thanks, aiki.

Now, on to salida.

I am truly grateful for your efforts in spending time to gather such a load of information! Thank you, once again.

Your essay on genetics is very convincing, but I think soul_biscuit had addressed certain issues regarding that essay, and I shared most views with him, so I guess I won’t spend anymore time talking about the essay, but will carefully check on the information you have given me.

Now, on to soul_biscuit.

If he is silent and invisible, then what reason is there to suppose that he is there?

Exactly, as he is silent and invisible, there is no reason to suppose that he is NOT there too! We can never know, can we, but to make possible assumptions, with the one that sounds more plausible more probably to be the right answer (I emphasize on the phrase ‘more probably&#8217.

If there were an intelligent agent responsible for creating this universe from beyond, it would still need an explanation. Did another intelligent agent create the universe in which it arrived? Where does the regress end?

Probably we don’t. aiki, I believed, had addressed this issue.

Aiki said:

Firstly, Soul Biscuit is confusing two disparate things here: God and the Universe. By definition, God is not what He has made. He is, by definition, outside the constraints of the laws of the Universe. In other words, He exists causeless while the Universe does not.

Now, on to the next issue, soul_biscuit.

Are they (that the brains are wired to accept the laws of the universe to be natural)? Or is it because experience demonstrates the laws as universal?

Well, aren’t they? And also, aren’t our experiences according to how our brains are wired, if they are?

Any evidence yet to be discovered would run counter to everything we've learned in the last few centuries. A global flood would have left a global layer of thick sediment and a vast, unsorted fossil record. There's also the fact that if enough rain fell out of the sky to cover all land masses in only forty days, the energy released would sear the surface of the Earth with thousands of degrees of heat. It's simply not possible.

The same is true of Adam and Eve. If at any time there were only two humans, the human genome would show signs of a tight genetic bottleneck only a few thousand years ago. There would have been evidence of inbreeding on a massive scale.

And I hate to be pedantic and this is probably in bad taste, but where did Cain's wife come from?

Wow…..loyal theist, you guys better try to beat that argument!

But many theists have claimed that there IS evidence, and I am still waiting for them to tell me. Probably you should keep yourself updated on this thread too, just in case something comes up.

Why should it ever be too late? There is far more to learn than can ever be learned by one.

It is because if you see God, it means you are dead, aren’t you? By then, it’s too late (see my point?).

Thank you everyone. All of you have been a great help. I think I have grown one step further in my spiritual journey.

 

[aiki]

Aiki, you might want to note my stand point on this issue – when I am addressing soul_biscuit (who claimed himself to be an atheist), I am refuting his explanation about His non-existence, so in this case, I am taking your stand point.

Uh huh. I understood what you were doing with your example and to whom it was directed.

The David Copperfield explanation is not more complicated than the God explanation – for both are the same explanation, where someone created something.

Why did you need to posit what you did about an other-dimensional being to explain what God has done? Why was it necessary?

That’s all I want to point out! Instead of using the word ‘God’, I just replace it with the name ‘David Copperfield’. Nothing to argue or be aggressive about in your case, but perhaps, not soul_biscuit – you see, that post is directed at him, not you!

No worries, mate! I'm not aggressive in my mood. In fact, while I am often blunt I very rarely feel any antagonism or aggressiveness toward those to whom I'm writing. This doesn't come across clearly in print, unfortunately.

Also, I said, “We accept the laws of our universe as natural, probably because our brains are wired to do so?”

And you replied with, “If that were true, there would be no concept of God.”

And I ask you: WHY?

I guess it depends upon what you mean by "accept the laws of our universe as natural." If by that you mean all laws exist by natural means, then, were our brains hardwired to think that, it would never occur to us to think that they could exist via some other means. We would be like a snake who is hardwired to eat only rodents, small reptiles, amphibians, and birds. It would never occur to such a snake to eat corn or potatoes because it is hardwired to consume very different things. In the same way, you and I, were we hardwired to think that all laws of the universe were natural in origin, would never think God had created them.

Evidence for God is all around you. How you interpret that evidence is the real issue.
I guess I am really an ignorant fool. Can you give me a few evidence or examples? I will gladly thank you for your help.

I certainly haven't thought nor implied in my posts that you were an "ignorant fool."

The above quotation from my last post was emphasizing that our presuppositions about God result in a particular way of interpreting scientific data. A naturalist or atheistic evolutionist presupposes there is no God and so interprets data in such a way as to reinforce this presupposition. He looks around him and sees what he expects to see: No God at all. A Christian, on the other hand, presupposes that there is a God and filters scientific data through this presupposition. Not surprisingly, he finds that the data constantly reveals the existence of God.

I could give you the evidence you ask for, but, depending upon what you believe, you will see God in the evidence or you will not. (Check out the Answers In Genesis website for some of the evidence you seek).

Wait a second, you confuse me! I say God is omnipotent because you theists said so, didn’t you guys?

We Christians do say God is omnipotent, but you have never claimed to be a Christian. So, when you write, "God is omnipotent," it sounds inconsistent with your disbelief in God. If you had written, "Christians believe God is omnipotent," I would have made no comment at all.

That is what both soul_biscuit and I want to know – where are the parts when science directly intersects? You have to answer our question by showing some examples!

Thanks, aiki.

You could start by checking out the AIG website I mentioned.

Peace to you.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Brother, I can't save you or convert you. I can only point you to One who can.

Jesus loves you. I would suggest you ask Him to reveal His plan to you. And I have faith that He will. He won't answer all your questions at once. That's why we have a lifetime to learn and grow.

You know, as a staunch Christian, I have a real problem with "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Or, worded another way in another old hymn, "You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart." Yeah, so does my dead grandmother, but that doesn't make her alive for anyone else, does it? Weak arguments like that don't make us look very intelligent. I know Jesus lives the same way I know the wind blows, even though I don't see it. I see what it does. I see what Jesus does.

I'm not one to play endless rounds of "prove it" with a confirmed atheist, but for one who seeks, I can only tell my own experience. That, rather than "cram the Bible down their throats whether they want to hear it or not," is the definition of witnessing.

 

[DongTanks]

Thanks, aiki,

In the same way, you and I, were we hardwired to think that all laws of the universe were natural in origin, would never think God had created them.

Well, can we be hardwired to question about the existence of God? Despite the laws of nature to be seen as natural because we are hardwired to do so, we still can be hardwired with the ability to question whether the laws are even natural in the first place. How we feel and how we think can be two different entities, and therefore, could be 'hardwired' separately.

Now, on to Mrs Brady,

I'm not one to play endless rounds of "prove it" with a confirmed atheist, but for one who seeks, I can only tell my own experience. That, rather than "cram the Bible down their throats whether they want to hear it or not," is the definition of witnessing.

It is because some of the facts in the Bible do not makes sense, like the happenning of the Flood, I am hesitating and wondering if all of us are victims of a thousands of years old prank .... athough by looking at the strong unwavering faith of people like you, I can feel that there might really be something.

But surely, why are you made by God to accept Him so readily when I am not? I heard arguements that He created evil so as to give us the free will to choose Him over evil, but why are some people made to be more evil, like me, who is not a Christian to start with? Why is my journey to salvation tougher than yours to start with? Is that being fair?

That is ONE BIG question that I have in my mind now. I hope you can help me again, Mrs Braddy.

Thank you.