How much longer?

[Not_By_Chance]

I'm very rigid in opposing the Godless view of the creation of humanity.

I'm very pleased to hear that. All we ever hear in the media is how this [probably] evolved from that and how something else [possibly] occurred x number of millions of years ago. Yet despite the almost blanket coverage of pro-naturalistic ideas, it is surprising how many people reject the notion because our everyday experiences show us that nothing comes from nothing, life never comes from non-life and the creatures with which we share this planet aren't in a process of continual change into other types of creatures. As you say, no-one has shown us how or even why sea-dwelling creatures would be able to or want to develop structures to live on land, how reptiles could become birds or why a plant, such as an apple tree, would develop flowers for insects it didn't know existed and then pleasant-tasting fruit for animals it didn't know existed. The whole of nature just shouts creation, but those with the highest intelligence don't seem to be able to see it. Do you think this was what was being referred to in the Bible when it says that the wise would become foolish?
Incidentally, if creation science were given even a fraction of the exposure that evolution has in the media, I wonder how many more would start to challenge the evolutionary view of origins?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

And all you do is repeat the "no evidence you'll accept" mantra. Tell you what, offer the evidence, show that it's based on the scientific method and then you can claim you've offered evidence which I rejected.

You are the one who is making the claims. I've asked you about you scientific meathodology and have recieved nothing but a schematic which can be more easily googled than actually understood by you let alone be used by you. If you are making the claims then it's your responcibilty to prove those claims. Other than that i claim B.S. on your entire arguement here. Put up or shut up!

Well, there's science and then there's the Darwinist pseudo-science.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim risd and repaeted for your convenience.

Simply show a Darwinist view of the process which produced humanity and which includes God. You'll not find it.

Do you really think that I thought this entire hypothesis up on my own. You continue to claim that it removes God from the equasion. Where does it do so? It is natural selection not natural creation.

What does it have to do with?

It has to do with following God's law or have you not ever opened the book you claim to embrace? Are you the cherry picking types that pull out what benefits you and leaves the rest to another day?

Darwinism supposes the process which produced humanity from an alleged life form of long ago and forbids the inclusion of God.

No it states that life was produced in a certain maner but it doesn't say a thing about who lit the spark.

Your belief that "evolution" is a monolithic term is an erroneous one.

I'm glad to hear you say that. It should fit quite well with the rest of your arogant assumptions .

Darwinist evolution (on of the several forms of evolution) completely removes God from the picture.

Only if you believe it does, which we've already heard you beliefs and they aren't based on anything other than opinion

Tell me about your observation of the process which created pine trees and humans from the same alleged life form of long ago.

God created everything. Is that simple enough. I don't see anything that evolution has to say that refutes this. Are you saying that evolution states that man and trees come from the same biological line. If so, I've not heard that before.

Beliefs without support of the scientific method are faith based.

You haven't proven that evolution can not be proven by any scientific method. You've just googled a schematic and posted it.

If you think that Godless creationism (aka known as atheistic Darwinist creationism) as an explanation for how man came into existence is compatible with theistic creation, your comprehension is totally lacking.

And thank you again for your well rehearsed opinion.

It's much much much more than a thought. It's spiritual warfare.

It's sensationalized grandstanding by a person promoting himself. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

if they are prepared to believe something they have read about in a book why stop with just Christianity? what's wrong with all the other religions why don't they believe them?
we both know why don't we? it was the luck of the draw, which means none of them are the one true religion.
Had you all been born to Muslims in a Muslim community you would all now be Muslims, it's as simple as that.

First of all, Christianity, like any other religion (including naturalism), is a faith, but it's not a blind faith. God told us that the evidence for His existence is all around us and when Christians look at the world and the universe, they see God's handiwork everywhere. The Bible is not a scientific textbook (if it were, it would have had to have been rewritten over and over again), but where it does touch on science, it speaks the truth. No-one has ever been able to prove the Bible wrong in any area that matters.
Secondly, there are more copies and part-copies of the Bible than any other ancient document. The scribes who used to make the copies went to extraordinary lengths to make sure that errors did not get introduced during each copying stage. Then you have Luke for instance, who recorded a huge amount of extra detail, much of which has subsequently been confirmed to be accurate from other sources - so much so that Luke has been regarded as one of the finest historians that ever lived.

None of the other religions even come close to the Biblical-based religions of Christianity/Judaism and since the other religions contain errors about physical things, why should we trust them for spiritual guidance. Also, the Muslim religion in particular, is based on suppression, but even in those parts of the world where anyone who dares to reject it risks isolation, torture or even death, there are people coming to Christ. Whilst all religions, even atheism, probably contain some truths, Christianity is demonstrably the one true religion. Logic dictates therefore that anything that contradicts Christianity and the Bible has to be false, including life having started and evolved from non-life and the universe having formed on its own without divine power.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm very pleased to hear that. All we ever hear in the media is how this [probably] evolved from that and how something else [possibly] occurred x number of millions of years ago. Yet despite the almost blanket coverage of pro-naturalistic ideas, it is surprising how many people reject the notion because our everyday experiences show us that nothing comes from nothing, life never comes from non-life and the creatures with which we share this planet aren't in a process of continual change into other types of creatures. As you say, no-one has shown us how or even why sea-dwelling creatures would be able to or want to develop structures to live on land, how reptiles could become birds or why a plant, such as an apple tree, would develop flowers for insects it didn't know existed and then pleasant-tasting fruit for animals it didn't know existed. The whole of nature just shouts creation, but those with the highest intelligence don't seem to be able to see it. Do you think this was what was being referred to in the Bible when it says that the wise would become foolish?
Incidentally, if creation science were given even a fraction of the exposure that evolution has in the media, I wonder how many more would start to challenge the evolutionary view of origins?

In my opinion, at some point, current Darwinistic evolutionary teaching will be relegated to it's proper place as simply another faith-based view of how humanity came into existence. Today, the voices who oppose Darwinism are controlled and quashed by fear of the repercussions of questioning the view, but truth, while sometimes deferred, will always win in the end.

 

[justlookinla]

You are the one who is making the claims.

I claim that no evidence has been offered for the how, the process, which Darwinism claims created all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago. Again, if you have evidence, based on the scientific method for such a claim or if you know of such evidence, please present it.

We both know you're not going to do that.

I've asked you about you scientific meathodology and have recieved nothing but a schematic which can be more easily googled than actually understood by you let alone be used by you.

I gave you a simple graphic hoping it would help you understand the scientific method. Maybe if you review it again it would help you?

If you are making the claims then it's your responcibilty to prove those claims. Other than that i claim B.S. on your entire arguement here. Put up or shut up!

I can't offer anything but the total and complete absence of evidence, based on the scientific method, that all life we observe today was produced by only a naturalistic process acting on an alleged life form of long ago.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim risd and repaeted for your convenience.

The reason Darwinism is pseudo-science is because of the lack of evidence for how, the process, of the particular evolutionary view.

Do you really think that I thought this entire hypothesis up on my own. You continue to claim that it removes God from the equasion. Where does it do so? It is natural selection not natural creation.

Atheistic Darwinist creationism was around long before you came along, you've apparently bought into the view in spite of the lack of evidence. It removes God from the equation because God isn't acknowledged, allowed, permitted, wanted in Darwnist evolution. You can easily prove me wrong by offering an example of where God is included in Darwinism. Again, we both know you're not going to do that.

It has to do with following God's law or have you not ever opened the book you claim to embrace? Are you the cherry picking types that pull out what benefits you and leaves the rest to another day?

Apologetics. Discuss it with someone else on this portion of the forum, not me. The admins don't allow it.

No it states that life was produced in a certain maner but it doesn't say a thing about who lit the spark.

Darwinist evolution states that all life we observe today was produced by a certain process. What you'll not find is God in the Darwinist process.

I'm glad to hear you say that. It should fit quite well with the rest of your arogant assumptions .

Tell me the difference between macro and micro evolution, if you will. Point out which one is supported by evidence, based on the scientific method.

Only if you believe it does, which we've already heard you beliefs and they aren't based on anything other than opinion

Reference God in the Darwinist process then. Give examples where mainstream science includes God in the process.

Again, we both know you're not going to do that.

God created everything. Is that simple enough.

Glad to hear you say that.

I don't see anything that evolution has to say that refutes this. Are you saying that evolution states that man and trees come from the same biological line. If so, I've not heard that before.

You're not very well read then.....

"Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales."

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
​

You haven't proven that evolution can not be proven by any scientific method. You've just googled a schematic and posted it.

Simply take the visual, apply it to whatever claim is made by Darwinism and see if the claim is supported by the scientific method. You will find some of Darwinism's claims, especially concerning the process which produced all life we observe today, isn't supported by the scientific method.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Look, I quoted your entire post and had some very harsh and biting choice words that were geting more Passive Agressive than I would appriciate thrown at me.

I'm getting far too agitated over this and I know when I'm about to make a rear end out of myself. I would not like to happen to me, so I certainly don't want to inflict that on you.

What I've said stands, but I will not defend it. You can take my exit anyway you wish. I've had people dance around thinking they have defeated me in a debate, but I almost defeated myself by letting my anger get the best of me and becoming someone I don't want to be remembered as. You have a nice day!

 

[Loudmouth]

it is surprising how many people reject the notion because our everyday experiences show us that nothing comes from nothing, life never comes from non-life

Isn't that exactly what creationism proposes?

 

[asherahSamaria]

Meaning of faith of which there are more than one...

faith noun (RELIGION)
B2 [C] a particular religion: the Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Buddhist faith They were persecuted for their faith. He was forced to practise his faith in secret. a multi-faith society They were brought up in the true faith (= the religion which the speaker believes is the only true one).


faith noun (TRUST)
B2 http://dictionary.cambridge.org/help/codes.html great trust or confidence in something or someone: She has no faith in modern medicine. You'll cope - I have great faith in you. After the trial, his family said they had lost all faith in the judicial system. Politicians must start keeping their promises if they want to restore the people's faith in government.


It's astounding how people (I'm looking at you not_by_chance) try to conflate the two different meanings in an underhand way.

 

[asherahSamaria]

First of all, Christianity, like any other religion (including naturalism), is a faith, but it's not a blind faith. God told us that the evidence for His existence is all around us and when Christians look at the world and the universe, they see God's handiwork everywhere. The Bible is not a scientific textbook (if it were, it would have had to have been rewritten over and over again), but where it does touch on science, it speaks the truth. No-one has ever been able to prove the Bible wrong in any area that matters.
Secondly, there are more copies and part-copies of the Bible than any other ancient document. The scribes who used to make the copies went to extraordinary lengths to make sure that errors did not get introduced during each copying stage. Then you have Luke for instance, who recorded a huge amount of extra detail, much of which has subsequently been confirmed to be accurate from other sources - so much so that Luke has been regarded as one of the finest historians that ever lived.

None of the other religions even come close to the Biblical-based religions of Christianity/Judaism and since the other religions contain errors about physical things, why should we trust them for spiritual guidance. Also, the Muslim religion in particular, is based on suppression, but even in those parts of the world where anyone who dares to reject it risks isolation, torture or even death, there are people coming to Christ. Whilst all religions, even atheism, probably contain some truths, Christianity is demonstrably the one true religion. Logic dictates therefore that anything that contradicts Christianity and the Bible has to be false, including life having started and evolved from non-life and the universe having formed on its own without divine power.

but it's not a blind faith - yes it is

God told us that the evidence for His existence is all around us - translation - the book is true because the book says it's true

No-one has ever been able to prove the Bible wrong in any area that matters - translation - The areas that matter shift as excuses become available

Secondly, there are more copies and part-copies of the Bible than any other ancient document- and this proves what?

The scribes who used to make the copies went to extraordinary lengths to make sure that errors did not get introduced during each copying stage - and yet there were so many different early sects of "Christianity" that a conclave had to be called to vote on what books should be included in the cannon so one particular sect would have overall control.

Then you have Luke for instance, who recorded a huge amount of extra detail, - translation - Then you have Luke for instance, who invented a huge amount of extra detail,

so much so that Luke has been regarded as one of the finest historians that ever lived - - translation - if I just keep repeating it maybe somebody will believe it

None of the other religions even come close to the Biblical-based religions of Christianity/Judaism and since the other religions contain errors about physical things, why should we trust them for spiritual guidance - Emm just for your information, Judaism completely rejects the idea of Jesus as the son of God / messiah etc, so you might want to rethink that.

Also, the Muslim religion in particular, is based on suppression, but even in those parts of the world where anyone who dares to reject it risks isolation, torture or even death. Correct - horray!!

Whilst all religions, even atheism, probably contain some truths - at the risk of sounding like a broken record - Atheism is like a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Christianity is demonstrably the one true religion - Great - demonstrate it then.

Logic dictates therefore that anything that contradicts Christianity and the Bible has to be false -- em.. no

including life having started and evolved from non-life and the universe having formed on its own without divine power -- eh - how much more non-sequitur can you get.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Meaning of faith of which there are more than one...

faith noun (RELIGION)
B2 [C] a particular religion: the Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Buddhist faith They were persecuted for their faith. He was forced to practise his faith in secret. a multi-faith society They were brought up in the true faith (= the religion which the speaker believes is the only true one).


faith noun (TRUST)
B2 great trust or confidence in something or someone: She has no faith in modern medicine. You'll cope - I have great faith in you. After the trial, his family said they had lost all faith in the judicial system. Politicians must start keeping their promises if they want to restore the people's faith in government.


It's astounding how people (I'm looking at you not_by_chance) try to conflate the two different meanings in an underhand way.

Religion:-
Full Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Since there is no scientific proof that the universe and subsequent life came into being all on its own without divine power, then atheism is by definition, a belief. There is nothing underhand about pointing that out as it's in the dictionaries, just one of which I have quoted from above. The only difference between Atheist beliefs and Christian's beliefs is that Christians know who they believe to be the creator, whereas Atheists have no idea and have to keep coming up with ever more fanciful ideas to explain everything.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

but it's not a blind faith - yes it is

Atheism is more of a blind faith because it has no credible explanation for how universe and life got started. At least the Christian has a miracle maker. The Atheist has none.

God told us that the evidence for His existence is all around us - translation - the book is true because the book says it's true

Your translation is a poor one because it only refers to part of the argument. Yes, God said there is evidence for His existence in nature, but we also have to look for it.

No-one has ever been able to prove the Bible wrong in any area that matters - translation - The areas that matter shift as excuses become available

Examples?

Secondly, there are more copies and part-copies of the Bible than any other ancient document- and this proves what?

That the copies that we have are authentic. If you do some research, you will find that the really important documents, such as the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John can be traced back to not long after the events that they describe and much too early for legend and myth to have crept in. The New Testament also refers back many times to passages from the Old Testament, including many quotes by Jesus Himself, who clearly presented them as authentic scripture.

The scribes who used to make the copies went to extraordinary lengths to make sure that errors did not get introduced during each copying stage - and yet there were so many different early sects of "Christianity" that a conclave had to be called to vote on what books should be included in the cannon so one particular sect would have overall control.

I would suggest reading something like "How did we get our Bible and is it the Word of God?" by Gary Bates and Lita Cosner for an initial overview. You could also try "Who moved the stone?" which was written by someone who tried his best to disprove the account of the resurrection but ended up believing it to be true.

Then you have Luke for instance, who recorded a huge amount of extra detail, - translation - Then you have Luke for instance, who invented a huge amount of extra detail,

so much so that Luke has been regarded as one of the finest historians that ever lived - - translation - if I just keep repeating it maybe somebody will believe it

But not all, as you have proved thus far.

None of the other religions even come close to the Biblical-based religions of Christianity/Judaism and since the other religions contain errors about physical things, why should we trust them for spiritual guidance - Emm just for your information, Judaism completely rejects the idea of Jesus as the son of God / messiah etc, so you might want to rethink that.

No I don't. Many of the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, despite the miracles He performed before their very eyes. There is a good example in the book, "I don't have enough faith to be an Atheist" where a Jewish friend of one of the authors gets angry when his friend points out the passages in the Old Testament that talk about the future coming of the Messiah. At first, he accuses his friend of using a different version of the scriptures, but after going home and looking up the passages that his friend told him about, he discovered that his friend had been telling the truth and his religious elders had deliberately omitted to tell him about that. Perhaps there is an element of that still going on - I can't say because I don't know much about how Judaism is taught.

Also, the Muslim religion in particular, is based on suppression, but even in those parts of the world where anyone who dares to reject it risks isolation, torture or even death. Correct - horray!!

Whilst all religions, even atheism, probably contain some truths - at the risk of sounding like a broken record - Atheism is like a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheism is a religion, albeit one without a god.

Christianity is demonstrably the one true religion - Great - demonstrate it then.

That's not my job. You can learn about it on other parts of this forum if you really want to know more about it.

Logic dictates therefore that anything that contradicts Christianity and the Bible has to be false -- em.. no

There can only be one truth, so if the Bible speaks the truth, then by definition, anything that goes against it has to be false in the areas where it touches. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." I believe Him. Do you?

including life having started and evolved from non-life and the universe having formed on its own without divine power -- eh - how much more non-sequitur can you get.

I've yet to hear a rational explanantion for how the universe and life could have got started all on their own. In the absence of any such explanantion, to accept that the creator God of the Bible did it makes much more sense to me.

 

[crjmurray]

It would appear that consol has been banished. The forums are safe.....for now.

 

[mickiio]

It would appear that consol has been banished. The forums are safe.....for now.

What are you talking about?

 

[crjmurray]

What are you talking about?

Inside joke. Only the popular kids get it.

 

[Job8]

This is the very reason I am asking the question, people are being damaged by it.

People can never be damaged by the truth. Evolution is a lie, and just like any other lie, it has been promoted as the truth so that people are fooled into believing it. That's the entire basis of propaganda -- if you repeat a lie long enough it is perceived as the truth. The question which evolutionists should be asking themselves is "How are we better off by believing that we descended from apes?"

 

[mickiio]

Inside joke. Only the popular kids get it.

Ahh gotcha Can't handle the opponents the regular way so take them out underhanded?

 

[crjmurray]

"How are we better off by believing that we descended from apes?"

Well no one "believes" that. They understand it. And I don't know if it does make us "better off" except for being more knowledgeable. Of course this information isn't supposed to make us better off. It's just information about our common ancestor.

 

[crjmurray]

Ahh gotcha Can't handle the opponents the regular way so take them out underhanded?

Consol would be your opponent. Read the OP, then read the first couple pages of the thread. You'll get it.

 

[mickiio]

People can never be damaged by the truth. Evolution is a lie, and just like any other lie, it has been promoted as the truth so that people are fooled into believing it. That's the entire basis of propaganda -- if you repeat a lie long enough it is perceived as the truth. The question which evolutionists should be asking themselves is "How are we better off by believing that we descended from apes?"

You mean Darwinian Evolution. Microevolution is testable, provable and verifiable. Natural Selection is as well. Unfortunately non astute Evolutionist like to meld an "educated guess" with a verifiable fact and say "this is good science", and then refuse to see the error of their ways.

 

[justlookinla]

You mean Darwinian Evolution. Microevolution is testable, provable and verifiable. Natural Selection is as well. Unfortunately non astute Evolutionist like to meld an "educated guess" with a verifiable fact and say "this is good science", and then refuse to see the error of their ways.

That's true. It's both intellectual and and scientific dishonesty to use evolution as a monolithic term and claim there's evidence for mutation and natural selection therefore that's the scientific process whereby all life was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago. They wish to meld two very disparate views together, one based on the scientific method, the other on guesses and suppositions, and pawn them off as science when in fact it's not. Darwinism is simply pseudo-science attempting to be wrapped in scientific legitimacy and when the thin veneer of the scientific fraud is removed, the scientific farce is there for all to see.