I don't understand...

[LastSeven]

You really need to understand. Evolution was NOT a quick thing. A lizard did not come from a snake's egg. It happened over millions of millions of years. Slowly changing the organism.

Even if you throw in the "millions of years" argument, or even billions, you still need to be able to prove that it's possible for one creature to turn into another.

Evolution is nothing more than a theory that rose up out of necessity to fill the void that was left when one man failed to understand the word of God. And it's clearly not a very solid theory, to say the least. You can believe in it if you want, but don't think that it requires any less faith than what I have in God.

 

[LastSeven]

And your saying the bible has no holes. The bible is one big hole. The only thing that is good in the bible are some of the 10 commandments and some of "Jesus"'s teachings.

If the 10 commandments and some of Jesus' teachings are the only things you find of any value in scripture, then that "hole" you see in the rest is really just your mind's representation of all you fail to understand. And despite what you have said about understanding scripture, you've just proven the opposite.

 

[oi_antz]

And your saying the bible has no holes. The bible is one big hole. The only thing that is good in the bible are some of the 10 commandments and some of "Jesus"'s teachings.

And lots of Ecclesiastes, and more.

 

[LastSeven]

3) When did the leper become not a leper? (Matthew 8:13 & 8:14) Jesus healed the leper before visiting the house. (Mark 1:29-30 & 1:40-42) Jesus healed the leper after visiting Simon Peter’s house.

The leper story has no timeline attached to it, nor is it told in relation to any of the other parts of Matthew chapter 8 or Mark chapter 1. It's entirely possible that the various miracles that Jesus performed are not told in the same order that they occurred. This does not make them any less true.

It's no different than somebody saying for example "I went to the grocery store and bought apples." followed by "I went to the bank and deposited my cheque". Just because one story is told first doesn't mean it happened first.

 

[LastSeven]

4) Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

Both accounts tell the same story, but that of Luke with more detail. When the centurion sent his servants to speak for him, it was a first century version of a telephone call. It was a message from the Centurion as though he spoke it directly to Jesus. It's not strange for Matthew to record it as though the Centurion approached Jesus directly, because vicariously he did so through his servant.

If I send my brother to give you a message, are you not receiving a message from me? I may not be approaching you directly, but I am approaching you nonetheless.

 

[Snake75]

Even if you throw in the "millions of years" argument, or even billions, you still need to be able to prove that it's possible for one creature to turn into another.

Evolution is nothing more than a theory that rose up out of necessity to fill the void that was left when one man failed to understand the word of God. And it's clearly not a very solid theory, to say the least. You can believe in it if you want, but don't think that it requires any less faith than what I have in God.

You still dont understand..... One creature did not just turn into another. It took millions and millions of years and they slowly gained what they needed to survive in their changing environment

Given the fact that out of all the religions in the world, only a single one, if any, can be right and the fact that not a single religion has 50% of the world's population adhering to it, proves that whichever group is right, they are in the minority.

Where are you getting your info from? Unless you live in lets say the 1950s that number has long since dropped to 33%. Christianity is going down.

Is there any proof that "animals grow new things and discard others"?

There are variations within every species, just as there are variations within the human race. Some people have brown eyes, some blue. Some people have lots of hair, some people very little. Some people have dark skin and some light, but despite all these variations we are all still human.

This is how it is with animals too. Variations within species exist, but no species can ever give rise to another, nor can animals from different species mate and produce offspring. If all animals really were descended from a single cell then how would science explain those boundaries that now exist between species?

Just look at snakes and lizards. They are very similar in many ways. I have 9 snakes and 1 lizard so I know. But, you dont see these two difference mating. thats because they evolved at different time periods. Snakes didnt evole much because they didnt and still dont need to. But, a group of snakes did evolve because where they are from they needed to be quicker.

Species evolved at a dna level too. That is why they can not mate with others.

 

[LastSeven]

5) Was she dead or just dying? (Matthew 9:18) He asked for help, saying his daughter was already dead. (Luke 8:41-42) Jairus approached Jesus for help, because his daughter was dying.

Again, there is no contradiction here. In the Luke account Jairus' servants came and said to Jairus that she is dead. In the Matthew account Jairus said to Jesus that she was dead. Most likely when Jairus heard from the servant that she is dead, he turned and explained it to Jesus. So in both accounts, Jairus did say she was dead, but the Matthew account lacked the detail of the servant coming.

Matthew clearly didn't see it important to mention that the message of the child's death came through the servant, whereas Luke chose to include that detail. The important point is that Jairus believed she was dead and Jesus brought her back. Either way, the story is the same.

Anytime you have two or more people retelling a story it's going to sound a little bit different as one person will put in more detail than the other. Keep in mind also that each gospel writer had a different purpose and audience. Which means you're going to have a different emphasis. For example Mark was written for the gentiles while John was written for the Hebrews. John did not include many of the miracles mentioned in the other gospels, but does that mean they didn't happen? Of course not. The same logic can be applied to details of a given story. Just because a detail is omitted does not mean it didn't happen.

 

[LastSeven]

You still dont understand..... One creature did not just turn into another. It took millions and millions of years and they slowly gained what they needed to survive in their changing environment

On the contrary, I understand just fine. My point is that millions and millions of years do not make your theory anymore correct.

Where are you getting your info from? Unless you live in lets say the 1950s that number has long since dropped to 33%. Christianity is going down.

Read my post again. I said that not a single religion has 50% of the population, that includes Christianity. That's why I said, no matter which religion is true, that group will be in the minority and the majority will be wrong. The point is, it doesn't matter if 99% of the world's scientist agree with you, they are still wrong. You seem to think that having the majority in your corner somehow validates your position. It doesn't.

 

[Snake75]

On the contrary, I understand just fine. My point is that millions and millions of years do not make your theory anymore correct.



Read my post again. I said that not a single religion has 50% of the population, that includes Christianity. That's why I said, no matter which religion is true, that group will be in the minority and the majority will be wrong. The point is, it doesn't matter if 99% of the world's scientist agree with you, they are still wrong. You seem to think that having the majority in your corner somehow validates your position. It doesn't.

LastSeven. You don't seem to realize evolution. Almost all scientists believe in evolution. Even religious ones. So your saying that your smarter than all of them and creationism is the answer...Shows a lot of ignorance...

I apologize I read that wrong.
I

 

[chrisstavrous]

Is there any proof that "animals grow new things and discard others"?

There are variations within every species, just as there are variations within the human race. Some people have brown eyes, some blue. Some people have lots of hair, some people very little. Some people have dark skin and some light, but despite all these variations we are all still human.

This is how it is with animals too. Variations within species exist, but no species can ever give rise to another, nor can animals from different species mate and produce offspring. If all animals really were descended from a single cell then how would science explain those boundaries that now exist between species?

No one knows if it was a single cell or multiple cells in diffrent areas that gave rise to all the diversity we see today.

 

[chrisstavrous]

You say that as though requiring improving is a good thing.

The fact that christianity has thousands of diffrent sects all claiming diffrent truths would show that improvment would be a good thing and christians shouldnt be afraid of change.

 

[LastSeven]

LastSeven. You don't seem to realize evolution. Almost all scientists believe in evolution. Even religious ones. So your saying that your smarter than all of them and creationism is the answer...Shows a lot of ignorance...

I apologize I read that wrong.
I

Let's put it this way, despite the obvious fact that most scientists in relevant fields believe in evolution over creation, and the fact that being part of the majority in no way validates your position, there are many esteemed scientists who admit that the theory of evolution simply does not hold water.

Take for example this quote from former evolutionist Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

So I repeat; evolution has not been proven and can not be proven to be correct, no matter how many scientists believe that it is.

You atheists love to take the position that you're so smart because you believe in facts while creationists believe in a something unproven, but to believe in evolution as you do not only takes more faith than what I have in God but you actually have to believe something to be true which has already been proven to be impossible.

 

[LastSeven]

The fact that christianity has thousands of diffrent sects all claiming diffrent truths would show that improvment would be a good thing and christians shouldnt be afraid of change.

The Bible does not need improving, Christians only need to improve their understanding of it.

Ironically, Christians are the only people on earth who admit that they are sinners and need "improving" and that this improvement can only come through Christ. And change is what we are looking forward to. Our change from corruptible to incorruptible and from flesh to spirit.

This is the whole point of the Bible. We are all sinners and in need of the cleansing blood of Christ. Without Christ we can't come into the presence of the perfect God, but with Christ we are forgiven for our imperfections and our sins are erased and at the end we will be made perfect in order to live in the presence of the Almighty.

In other words Christians will be improved through the very thing you disagree with; our faith. You may think people can improve themselves through science but that still leaves you a hopeless sinner and only serves to glorify yourself among men, whereas we aim to humble ourselves through the understanding that only Christ can truly improve us and to glorify God.

 

[Snake75]

Let's put it this way, despite the obvious fact that most scientists in relevant fields believe in evolution over creation, and the fact that being part of the majority in no way validates your position, there are many esteemed scientists who admit that the theory of evolution simply does not hold water.

Take for example this quote from former evolutionist Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does."

So I repeat; evolution has not been proven and can not be proven to be correct, no matter how many scientists believe that it is.

You atheists love to take the position that you're so smart because you believe in facts while creationists believe in a something unproven, but to believe in evolution as you do not only takes more faith than what I have in God but you actually have to believe something to be true which has already been proven to be impossible.

Evolution is a theory. Meaning it has facts and PROVEN evidence. While God or any deity has no evidence whatsoever. A theory also means it has no evidence against it. So when was it proven impossible? By one scientist over the 1000s?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't understand why people believe in some supreme being. It makes absolutely no sense. There is no evidence at all of its existence. Science has found the answers to almost everything that was once thought of as Gods doing.What keeps you believing in this?

Faith in God is different then attributing the unknown to a divine or numinous power.

I believe in God because I am compelled to believe by the Jesus I encounter in the Gospel.

I am compelled by this Jesus to be a Christian and to believe Him and believe in Him.

I am not compelled by reason or evidence, but rather by the weight of Jesus Himself.

I also don't see any problem or conflict with empirical knowledge of the natural order with Christian faith. The one does not exclude the other.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[chrisstavrous]

The Bible does not need improving, Christians only need to improve their understanding of it.

Ironically, Christians are the only people on earth who admit that they are sinners and need "improving" and that this improvement can only come through Christ. And change is what we are looking forward to. Our change from corruptible to incorruptible and from flesh to spirit.

This is the whole point of the Bible. We are all sinners and in need of the cleansing blood of Christ. Without Christ we can't come into the presence of the perfect God, but with Christ we are forgiven for our imperfections and our sins are erased and at the end we will be made perfect in order to live in the presence of the Almighty.

In other words Christians will be improved through the very thing you disagree with; our faith. You may think people can improve themselves through science but that still leaves you a hopeless sinner and only serves to glorify yourself among men, whereas we aim to humble ourselves through the understanding that only Christ can truly improve us and to glorify God.

When I was doubting my faith and thinking of leaving I was told this exact thing, that if I left god I would return to my sinful ways and not care. I was afraid this was true but its not. I may not have the holy spirit and the bible and god anymore reminding me im a sinner, but I can tell you that I am still aware of the bad things I think and do and I have not given up on changing my mind and my life. This idea that people cant change without god is nonsense and anyone who is only changing because they have been told to or because they fear some horrible punishement for not changing is not changing for the right reason.

 

[aiki]

Evolution is a theory. Meaning it has facts and PROVEN evidence.

Change within a kind via natural selection, speciation, and mutation have been shown to occur but these have not in turn proven that "goo to you by way of the zoo" is possible. In fact, it looks like the very things the ToE relies on to carry evolution forward actually prevent evolution from occurring. Mutation, for example, typically involves a loss of genetic information rather than the increase of it that evolution requires. This is often the case with natural selection as well. But the process whereby a bit of slime becomes a walking, thinking creature must have a massive and regular influx of new genetic information. In all the instances of change that science has observed, no new genetic information has spontaneously appeared in a species' genome. The existing information is rearranged and often parts of it are lost entirely but no truly new information has ever been observed to develop.

In any case, even if the ToE was actually proven to be true it still would not prove that God does not exist. God and the ToE are not mutually exclusive as you seem to think.

While God or any deity has no evidence whatsoever.

This is patently false. See the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or Liebniz's Argument from Contingency, or the many teleological arguments, and so on. There is, in fact, a very large and deep pool of evidence for God's existence.

A theory also means it has no evidence against it. So when was it proven impossible? By one scientist over the 1000s?

What you are trying to employ as an argument above is the logical fallacy called Argumentum ad Populum. Galileo was initially in a distinct minority in his belief that the Earth revolved around the Sun. But Galileo was, nonetheless, correct. THat the majority of people believe a thing to be so does not, therefore, mean it is so.

Selah.

 

[Snake75]

You still fail to realize what a theory is. There has been nothing proven against evolution. You can say all you want. But its wrong. If there were anything against evolution it would be discarded and joy a theory anymore.

There is no evidence. These are arguments that hold no value at all and have been debunked.

 

[LastSeven]

When I was doubting my faith and thinking of leaving I was told this exact thing, that if I left god I would return to my sinful ways and not care. I was afraid this was true but its not. I may not have the holy spirit and the bible and god anymore reminding me im a sinner, but I can tell you that I am still aware of the bad things I think and do and I have not given up on changing my mind and my life. This idea that people cant change without god is nonsense and anyone who is only changing because they have been told to or because they fear some horrible punishement for not changing is not changing for the right reason.

It sounds to me like you believe that being a good person is all that matters, and since you don't need God for that, you don't need God at all. What you fail to grasp is that you need God, not to be a good person, but to be forgiven for your sin. That's what it's all about.

Jesus didn't come to earth to tell us to be nice to each other. He came to earth to tell us that we can receive forgiveness for our sins. That is the gospel, the good news.

If you do good on earth in your own name, then you only glorify yourself and you have already received your reward. If you do good in the name of God then you glorify God and your reward will be in heaven.

I encourage you to look at the bigger picture, beyond your life on earth.

 

[Snake75]

You don't need God at all. Just be a good person. Its that simple.