...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[AV1611VET]

It is you who is calling Him a liar, not me.

I somehow don't think you see me when you look at a mirror.

 

[XB3LI3V3RX]

So many lost individuals, it's just sad that people still think evolution is possible and that God isn't real. (Which I don't even see the point of non-Christians coming to a Christian website in the first place unless you people really don't have a life.)

 

[Lollerskates]

(Which I don't even see the point of non-Christians coming to a Christian website in the first place unless you people really don't have a life.)

To show Christians the errs of our deluded ways for believing in a sky god. Haven't you been to the Ethics and Morality forum?

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Well if the ToE was being opposed as late as 1989, I guess that should be good enough to say that the ToE was being opposed as late as 1989 ... don't you think?

Absolutely!

 

[AV1611VET]

Absolutely!

I'm fond of asking these guys:

If there are scientists who oppose evolution, is it okay if I oppose it as well? or do I have to be a scientist as well?

 

[XB3LI3V3RX]

To show Christians the errs of our deluded ways for believing in a sky god. Haven't you been to the Ethics and Morality forum?

I try not to because of all the misguided people using words such as "fairy tales" and "sky god".

 

[AV1611VET]

I try not to because of all the misguided people using words such as "fairy tales" and "sky god".

I would say "misguided" is an appropriate word here; considering whose music they're dancing to.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

So many lost individuals, it's just sad that people still think evolution is possible and that God isn't real. (Which I don't even see the point of non-Christians coming to a Christian website in the first place unless you people really don't have a life.)

The Muslim forum guys are too serious, those guys might cut my head off, the chabadtalk guys arent much fun either, the Atheist forums are sometimes anti theist so.....ok your right I dont have a life.....

 

[KWCrazy]

Isn't it amazing how people who have never created life can so freely critique the work of one who has; even going so far as to say that they have such a profound understanding of biology and science that if any genetic design doesn't fit with how they think it should be then the God who created it must be a liar or a deceiver. Atheists give testimony to the veracity of Psalms 14:1 on a daily basis. If you can get past their childish blaspheme it can be amusing to watch them discussing the characteristics of a God in which they don't believe.

Who are they trying to fool? Each other?

This thread is about whether people believe in evolution. Perhaps we should start another called, "If you have no clue what you're talking about, please give your opinion on how man should have been designed." The reason that we hear the same arguments over and over is that they all come from the same textbook. Atheists think they are profound because they can ask the same questions atheists ask day in and day out. It certainly takes a sound mind to cut and paste the things you read in a textbook. None of them seem to actually understand the nature of science.

Here's a clue. Science does not equal reality. In a purely physical world we're born, we reproduce and we die. That's it. There is no need for love. Monogamy is contrary to continued reproduction. We should care nothing about the condition of the world we leave behind because we won't be here. If something will benefit me then I should take it. There can be no right or wrong in a physical world, only what is productive and what is counterproductive. It makes perfect sense to kill someone who might otherwsie eat your food. Dedicating your life to helping others is meaningless. There is no morality, no reward for good deeds, nothing but cool dirt at the end of the life span.

Surprise! We don't live in that world! In this world there is good and evil. No matter how you lie to yourself you still have a conscience which tells you what's right and wrong; even if you refuse to follow it. Where did that come from? What was the name of that tree in Eden again?

In a true physical world, every single reported NDE is a lie. Every premonition is a lie. Every reported apparition is a lie. Every unexplained image on film had to be fabricated. Ouija boards don't work and have never worked. Everyone who has ever felt the presence of God is insane. Every soldier who sacrifices himself for another is a fool.

I'm glad I don't live in your world.

 

[Heissonear]

Isn't it amazing how people who have never created life can so freely critique the work of one who has; even going so far as to say that they have such a profound understanding of biology and science that if any genetic design doesn't fit with how they think it should be then the God who created it must be a liar or a deceiver. Atheists give testimony to the veracity of Psalms 14:1 on a daily basis. If you can get past their childish blaspheme it can be amusing to watch them discussing the characteristics of a God in which they don't believe.

Who are they trying to fool? Each other?

This thread is about whether people believe in evolution. Perhaps we should start another called, "If you have no clue what you're talking about, please give your opinion on how man should have been designed." The reason that we hear the same arguments over and over is that they all come from the same textbook. Atheists think they are profound because they can ask the same questions atheists ask day in and day out. It certainly takes a sound mind to cut and paste the things you read in a textbook. None of them seem to actually understand the nature of science.

Here's a clue. Science does not equal reality. In a purely physical world we're born, we reproduce and we die. That's it. There is no need for love. Monogamy is contrary to continued reproduction. We should care nothing about the condition of the world we leave behind because we won't be here. If something will benefit me then I should take it. There can be no right or wrong in a physical world, only what is productive and what is counterproductive. It makes perfect sense to kill someone who might otherwsie eat your food. Dedicating your life to helping others is meaningless. There is no morality, no reward for good deeds, nothing but cool dirt at the end of the life span.

Surprise! We don't live in that world! In this world there is good and evil. No matter how you lie to yourself you still have a conscience which tells you what's right and wrong; even if you refuse to follow it. Where did that come from? What was the name of that tree in Eden again?

In a true physical world, every single reported NDE is a lie. Every premonition is a lie. Every reported apparition is a lie. Every unexplained image on film had to be fabricated. Ouija boards don't work and have never worked. Everyone who has ever felt the presence of God is insane. Every soldier who sacrifices himself for another is a fool.

I'm glad I don't live in your world.

So clearly stated and so true. May God's grace continue to bless others.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Isn't it amazing how people who have never created life can so freely critique the work of one who has; even going so far as to say that they have such a profound understanding of biology and science that if any genetic design doesn't fit with how they think it should be then the God who created it must be a liar or a deceiver. Atheists give testimony to the veracity of Psalms 14:1 on a daily basis. If you can get past their childish blaspheme it can be amusing to watch them discussing the characteristics of a God in which they don't believe.

Who are they trying to fool? Each other?

This thread is about whether people believe in evolution. Perhaps we should start another called, "If you have no clue what you're talking about, please give your opinion on how man should have been designed." The reason that we hear the same arguments over and over is that they all come from the same textbook. Atheists think they are profound because they can ask the same questions atheists ask day in and day out. It certainly takes a sound mind to cut and paste the things you read in a textbook. None of them seem to actually understand the nature of science.

Here's a clue. Science does not equal reality. In a purely physical world we're born, we reproduce and we die. That's it. There is no need for love. Monogamy is contrary to continued reproduction. We should care nothing about the condition of the world we leave behind because we won't be here. If something will benefit me then I should take it. There can be no right or wrong in a physical world, only what is productive and what is counterproductive. It makes perfect sense to kill someone who might otherwsie eat your food. Dedicating your life to helping others is meaningless. There is no morality, no reward for good deeds, nothing but cool dirt at the end of the life span.

Surprise! We don't live in that world! In this world there is good and evil. No matter how you lie to yourself you still have a conscience which tells you what's right and wrong; even if you refuse to follow it. Where did that come from? What was the name of that tree in Eden again?

In a true physical world, every single reported NDE is a lie. Every premonition is a lie. Every reported apparition is a lie. Every unexplained image on film had to be fabricated. Ouija boards don't work and have never worked. Everyone who has ever felt the presence of God is insane. Every soldier who sacrifices himself for another is a fool.

I'm glad I don't live in your world.

Are you trying to set a world record for most logical fallacies in a single post? Who could possibly wade through this ocean of bilge?

Pick a single point and stick to it, please.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

If there are scientists who oppose evolution, is it okay if I oppose it as well? or do I have to be a scientist as well?

Nah you dont have to be a Scientist to oppose evolution AV, you found a real scientist as recent as 1989 who does, that is all you need for credibility.

 

[Lollerskates]

Who could possibly wade through this ocean of bilge?

I read his whole wall of text, and understood each point he was trying to make. By the end of the text, I thought he explained himself well.

 

[Lollerskates]

I'm fond of asking these guys:

If there are scientists who oppose evolution, is it okay if I oppose it as well? or do I have to be a scientist as well?

I'm a physicist... does that count?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

So many lost individuals, it's just sad that people still think evolution is possible

I dare you demonstrate that it isn't.

 

[Tomk80]

First you write this:

This thread is about whether people believe in evolution. Perhaps we should start another called, "If you have no clue what you're talking about, please give your opinion on how man should have been designed."

Then you write this:

Monogamy is contrary to continued reproduction.

Methinks you should follow your own advice.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Isn't it amazing how people who have never created life can so freely critique the work of one who has; even going so far as to say that they have such a profound understanding of biology and science that if any genetic design doesn't fit with how they think it should be then the God who created it must be a liar or a deceiver. Atheists give testimony to the veracity of Psalms 14:1 on a daily basis. If you can get past their childish blaspheme it can be amusing to watch them discussing the characteristics of a God in which they don't believe.

Who are they trying to fool? Each other?

No, I'm trying to understand your beliefs. You claimed that miracles are given as a reward for faith. You also claimed that faith is belief in things unproven and that it is necessary for salvation. Why would a miracle be deemed a "reward" for someone who already believes? They already believe even in the absence of miracles.

This thread is about whether people believe in evolution. Perhaps we should start another called, "If you have no clue what you're talking about, please give your opinion on how man should have been designed." The reason that we hear the same arguments over and over is that they all come from the same textbook. Atheists think they are profound because they can ask the same questions atheists ask day in and day out. It certainly takes a sound mind to cut and paste the things you read in a textbook. None of them seem to actually understand the nature of science.

Here's a clue. Science does not equal reality. In a purely physical world we're born, we reproduce and we die. That's it. There is no need for love. Monogamy is contrary to continued reproduction. We should care nothing about the condition of the world we leave behind because we won't be here. If something will benefit me then I should take it. There can be no right or wrong in a physical world, only what is productive and what is counterproductive. It makes perfect sense to kill someone who might otherwsie eat your food. Dedicating your life to helping others is meaningless. There is no morality, no reward for good deeds, nothing but cool dirt at the end of the life span.

Are you implying that the only reason you don't do those things is because you believe in a deity?

Surprise! We don't live in that world! In this world there is good and evil. No matter how you lie to yourself you still have a conscience which tells you what's right and wrong; even if you refuse to follow it. Where did that come from? What was the name of that tree in Eden again?

In a true physical world, every single reported NDE is a lie. Every premonition is a lie. Every reported apparition is a lie. Every unexplained image on film had to be fabricated. Ouija boards don't work and have never worked. Everyone who has ever felt the presence of God is insane. Every soldier who sacrifices himself for another is a fool.

I'm glad I don't live in your world.

Why can't good and evil exist in a natural world? You're assuming that the existence of the supernatural is a necessary pre-condition for the existence of morality.

 

[KWCrazy]

I'm a physicist... does that count?

Interestingly, physicists and cosmologists are the least likely to buy into evolution because they realize the neccessity of causation to existence. The universe had to come from somewhere, but there is no provision in science for the spontaneous creation of matter/ energy. The catalyst had to come from somewhere beyond our understanding or from a source that physical science simply cannot study. The supernatural cannot be studied scientifically, thus it can be neither proved nor disproved. We can learn all about what is, but how it came about remains speculation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The supernatural cannot be studied scientifically, thus it can be neither proved nor disproved.

How convenient for the supernaturalist!

Metaphysical world. It is true, there might be a metaphysical world; one can hardly dispute the absolute possibility of it. We see all things by means of our human head, and cannot chop it off, though it remains to wonder what would be left of the world if indeed it had been cut off. This is a purely scientific problem, and not very suited to cause men worry. But all that has produced metaphysical assumptions and made them valuable, horrible, pleasurable to men thus far is passion, error, and self-deception. The very worst methods of knowledge, not the very best, have taught us to believe in them. When one has disclosed these methods to be the foundation of all existing religions and metaphysical systems, one has refuted them. That other possibility still remains, but we cannot begin to do anything with it, let alone allow our happiness, salvation, and life to depend on the spider webs of such a possibility. For there is nothing at all we could state about the metaphysical world except its differentness, a differentness inaccessible and incomprehensible to us. It would be a thing with negative qualities.
No matter how well proven the existence of such a world might be, it would still hold true that the knowledge of it would be the most inconsequential of all knowledge, even more inconsequential than the knowledge of the chemical analysis of water must be to the boatman facing a storm.

 

[XB3LI3V3RX]

I dare you demonstrate that it isn't.

I dare you to demonstrate that it is.