MOVED FROM OUTREACH: Scary Evolution O.O

[Calminian]

You dont know what your fellow Creationists really say Calminian. Theres one right now on this forum that told me in Noahs time there was a literally a solid firmament in sky that had windows to keep the water out. But apparently this is just a strawman Evolutionists made up, right...

I'm not aware of it. I'll have to take your word for it. There's always that one guy. I just met and atheist yesterday that denies the BB. Go figure.

And geocentrism, another Evolutionist strawman? Really Calminian, isnt it funny how even your favourite Creationist site argues against these mythical believers!

When did I say they were mythical believers? I think you are confusing this with my comments about flat earthism. No problem I'm used to that from you. And yes I'm glad creationists are exposing these utterly fallacious interpretations, like geocentrism and TE.

So Edx do you still believe that all YECs are lying? I'm wondering if you've matured (or evolved) at all. You do realize these irrational beliefs you have are making you bitter?

 

[MewtwoX]

One more post, to counter Key's post about Hypotheses and Theories:

I hope that this was simply done because of failure to comprehend the whole deal as opposed to having an ulterior motive to try and influence you believe some silly Theory as Fact.

As I've said before: Evolution is both Theory and Fact. Things such as common descent are considered facts now and the mechanisms involved are considered Theories.

I do not know who has lead you down this road of deception, and confused to such lengths.
I will hopefully take a moment to try and correct this misunderstanding you have, regarding this.

There is a Law of Gravity, and a Theory of Gravity. The two should not be confused with each other.. The reason your pencils do not float has nothing to do with either of them. That is the Fact that Gravity Exists.

The Law of Gravity is a Formula that Explains How gravity Functions. This is a Law, a Constant. Not something that is open to interpretation.

Close, The Law of Gravity is a statement of a natural phenomena. The Law of Gravity is a statement about the existence of a force which attracts objects of mass in space together and Newton also quantifies this force with the forumula you stated, however...

At the end you say that gravity cannot be open to interpretation. Accepting your ability to argue against Evolution as being an " just an unproven Theory", you would be wrong. If you can question a theory for being wrong and unproven, then you can question a Law as well. Just because your senses indicate a force pushing objects toward one another doesn't mean there actually is one.

You could be subject to faulty sensory perception, or it could in fact be a combination of other affects that lead to the "illusion" of a Gravitational Force.

The Theory of Gravity is a Theory because it proposes that this force “Gravity” is what holds the universe together, however, Einstein’s Law of Relativity seems to put some dampers on this Theory of Universal Gravitation.

No, the explanation of all the universe being bound by this force is included in Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation:

"In 1687 Newton published his work on the universal law of gravity in his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Newton’s law of gravitation states that: every particle in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_gravity

Theories of Gravity are explanations of how the attractive force of Gravity works.

For example (again from Wikipedia):

Alternative theories

Historical alternative theories

• Aristotelian theory of gravity
• Le Sage's theory of gravitation (1784) also called LeSage gravity, proposed by Georges-Louis Le Sage, based on a fluid-based explanation where a light gas fills the entire universe.
• Nikola Tesla announced but never published a Dynamic theory of gravity; in part because the details (if any) of the theory were never revealed, this has never been taken seriously by physicists,
• Nordström's theory of gravitation (1912, 1913), an early competitor of general relativity.
• Whitehead's theory of gravitation (1922), another early competitor of general relativity.

Recent alternative theories

• Brans-Dicke theory of gravity (1961)
• Induced gravity (1967), a proposal by Andrei Sakharov according to which general relativity might arise from quantum field theories of matter.
• Rosen bi-metric theory of gravity
• In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) (1981), Mordehai Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of motion for small accelerations.
• The new and "highly controversial" Process Physics theory attempts to address gravity
• The Self creation cosmology theory of gravity (1982) by G.A. Barber in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass creation.
• Nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) (1994) by John Moffat
• The satirical theory of Intelligent falling (2002, in its first incarnation as "Intelligent grappling")
• Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) (2004), a relativistic modification of MOND by Jacob Bekenstein

The Fact of Gravity, is the self evident situation, that your pencil does not “Float”

True, however the nature of this non-floating can be questioned by your standards. It could be just "Gods power" rather than natural forces. It could be many different things. In fact, just because your pencil doesn't floats now doesn't mean it won't float later, say perhaps magic teacups push all matter towards itself and special "Chemical X" to repel the magic teacups?

Then things would "float" according to this explanation and thus the current "Fact" of Gravity is nothing more than an "Unproven Assumption".

Do you see the problem in this line of questioning you purpsue now?

Unless we are talking about Evolution, that particular Theory seems to be outside of the realm of Facts, Like, Dinosaurs go from being reptiles to birds, and the Theory of Evolution is undaunted, as if that had no impact on it at all. Funny that, don’t you think?

Doesn't sound like someone's up to date on their evidence... You should check the papers in PubMed as they offer convincing evidence from Genetic studies and archaeology hasn't set up disproof either...

You seem so sure of that.
It is a Religion, in every sense. You will find many “Scientific” Groups and Organizations that place Evolution among their statements of faith, as proudly as adamantly as Christian Church would say Jesus is Salvation.

But this is not the topic of Debate, so I will not, (Unless you want to) peruse this issue any further.

Sorry Key, but the only organizations I see making any biased statements about refusing to accept evidence against or for Evolution are Creationists, as shown below:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

(PS: Uh Oh... I don't think John will like AiG anymore...

4. The ‘gap’ theory has no basis in Scripture.

)

No we have not, not as much as some would so much like to believe. The “Progression” stages are a bit of a play on desire. You see, what we really find is “the Broken remains of part of a Skull” and ”Maybe a Bone or two) then we use artist talent and a little influence of what we want the final to be (If we Believe in Evolution and we can make this look like a transition fossil, then, that is what it is going to be, regardless of what it was), and from this we formulate what the whole skull would be, from there we formulate the body (With no parts, or maybe a bone or two) and place it in where we believe it should it fit, in many cases, there have been mistakes regarding what heads we have placed on what bodies, because if scavengers disturbing the bodies , etc.

So, Although I trust they are doing the “Best they Can”, I can not take on faith they are 100% correct, many mistakes have been made) and if they are not correct in their findings (Facts) that leads to a questionable conclusion or “Theory"

1. There is no "Progression" in Evolution. Evolution is directed any way the current environment requires it.

2. Those "bits and pieces" are only used if reliable conclusions can be drawn from them. The morphological differences in the fossils found are what conclusions are drawn from. We make no reliance on "artist conceptions" to make a conclusion.

No it’s not, as you have said, “Evolution is not a Religion” besides, there are Two distince theories.

There is Adaptation (AKA: Micro Evolution)

And Single Origin Theory (AKA: Macro Evolution) (AKA: Darwin Evolution)

There is no separation of the two. Adaption is the singular steps of a Much larger process of Evolution in Species. Common Descent is concluded quite easily from the evidence and is accepted as fact within the scientific Community.

Macro on the other hand uses or builds it support from Micro. So it’s a Theory dependent on itself, isn’t that a circular argument if they are same Theory. Why yes it is.

No it's not a separate theory, these two "separate Theories" are two parts on one Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

As for the circular argument claim... Wow. This is in no way ciruclar reasoning and I'm having a hard time even seeing how you concluded that.


From Variation, Mutation and Selection, comes Adaptation. Adaptation coupled with Reproductive Isolation leads to speciation and many speciation events lead to the hierarchy of life we see today.

From the evidence we gather in life today we conclude Common Descent (as fact) and propose Evolution by Natural Selection as the Theory.

So they must be viewed as separate Theories for them to contain any validity.

No they do not. They are separate parts and neither draws on the other to prove themselves. The evidence points to Common Descent, a Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is proposed to explain how Common Descent occured and evidence is found to back up this explanation.

Whew, okay I'm done...

 

[Edx]

I'm not aware of it. I'll have to take your word for it. There's always that one guy.

Right so when you said "no one ever believed" in a Flat Earth what you really meant to say is "not many people believed in it".

Kinda different!

btw you dont have to take my word for it. [link]

...for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.

Poetry

Is that the same for the windows of the firmament that keep the water in the heavens from coming in?

They did until Noah's time.

I just met and atheist yesterday that denies the BB.

Except I wasnt the one that claimed atheists never say such things. You cited the "solid dome sky" as one of the most ridiculous examples you could think of, because in your mind it was even more of a joke than you already claimed the "flat earth" and geocentrism to be.

When did I say they were mythical believers? I think you are confusing this with my comments about flat earthism. No problem I'm used to that from you. And yes I'm glad creationists are exposing these utterly fallacious interpretations, like geocentrism and TE.

I really dont know why some people think they can claim they didnt say something when they said it on a thread where anyone can check. You said no one ever believed in a flat earth, that it was a myth. But then Seebs told you while Flat Earthism is a joke Geocentrism isnt, yoiu then replied by saying it is indeed "also a joke" (agreeing with him calling the flat earth a joke)

"Geocentrism is also a joke. In its heyday it was pushed primarily by "scientists", not by theologians. It was the scientists of his day that drove Galileo into seclusion. "

Well not only have you been proven wrong on all these points by Split Rock anyway but interestingly AIG also argue against a modern geocentrist Gerardus Bouw who they say is the founder and director of the Association for Biblical Astronomy and even has a Ph.D. in Astronomy. So, geocentrism isnt really a joke is it! Thats what Seebs was saying, that geocentrism is not a joke people really do believe it, yet you reply that actually Geocentrism is "also" a joke! Yet now you say you knew it all along and so infact actually agreed with Seebs.

You: It was only a matter of time before someone carted out the flat earth straw man. Sorry guys, no one ever believed it. Christian flat earthism is a myth.

Seebs said: The flat earth is a joke. Geocentrism isn't, and we've had geocentrists right here at Christian Forums

You reply: Geocentrism is also a joke. In its heyday it was pushed primarily by "scientists", not by theologians...

Really, if you didnt mean Geocentrism is "also a joke" in the same way as you thought flat earth is a joke, then you shouldnt have disagreed with the poster in the way you did. Anyone reading would assume you believed Geocentrism, like Flat Earthism, to be "also a joke" in that no Christians really believed it and you blame the belief on scientists instead.

But okay if thats not what you meant, fine. Perhaps it would be better to choose your words more carefully next time.

So Edx do you still believe that all YECs are lying?

Are you still beating your wife?

I said Kent Hovind was a liar, not all YECs. I never said anything resembling what you claim I said.

I'm wondering if you've matured (or evolved) at all. You do realize these irrational beliefs you have are making you bitter?

Its a shame you cant stop trying to defame my character and just discuss the issue properly. Why dont you head back over to this thread and answer the questions I've been trying to get you to answer for pages and pages.

 

[NASAg03]

Why do some Christians fear evolution so much? There are many forums online (And sites, and other things) that have only the specific use to try and dismantle Evolution. Why? I mean, if they believed that Evolution was wrong and stuff, why even feel threatened by it?

So, why do many Christians attack Evolution like its a plague?

I wont lie - I have doubts about the existance of God. My faith is still relatively young and coming into an existance of it's own. Everytime I read a new "fact" proclaiming evolution, new questions and unbelief enters my life. This also affects my relationship with God, and I ended up spending a few weeks apart because I feel He has let me down and deceived me.

But maybe the people you should be asking this question to is the atheists who so strongly believe in and push evolutionism. Afterall - they claim we came from nothing and our lives have no meaning...other than "to be happy".

So this begs the question: why you are sitting here, at your computer, staring at a 17" monitor, alone, getting worked up and arguing over what you consider nothing???

I mean, the atheistic life is short, and surely there are better things you can be doing than arguing with a bunch of fundamentalist Christians online. You can't tell me that this makes you "happy". If all I had in my existance was 70 years +/- 20 years, I would be makign the most of it, partying, enjoying the great outdoors, and being with my family and friends.

The reality is: atheistic evolutionist push their "science" so hard because they hope it will back up their belief that God doesn't exist. They do all this research, and testing, and theorizing to prove to themself that God doesn't exist.

This just goes to show that there is an a priori knowledge of God, and when a person doesn't have the faith to believe in God, they will go to great lengths to show that God doesn't exist.

If God doesn't exist, why are you wasting your short time on life proving that He doesn't exist, and on internet message boards no less?

Now, some of you may turn this question around and say "why are Christians doing the same thing?" Well, I've already stated that I have my doubts, and can only hope and pray God will show me the truth and turn my disbelief into faith. But I've also been comissioned to share my faith with others, and to share in the Good News of Jesus Christ. I'm not allowed to "just be happy", because if I just go throug life trying to enjoy it, then there might be someone who gets fed a lie and spends an eternity away from God, and that makes me very unhappy.

 

[Edx]

I wont lie - I have doubts about the existance of God. My faith is still relatively young and coming into an existance of it's own. Everytime I read a new "fact" proclaiming evolution, new questions and unbelief enters my life. This also affects my relationship with God, and I ended up spending a few weeks apart because I feel He has let me down and deceived me.

You should read Finding Darwins God by Ken Miller a Christian.

But maybe the people you should be asking this question to is the atheists who so strongly believe in and push evolutionism.

Afterall - they claim we came from nothing

Lie.

and our lives have no meaning...other than "to be happy".

Lie.

So this begs the question: why you are sitting here, at your computer, staring at a 17" monitor, alone, getting worked up and arguing over what you consider nothing???

Creationists want to subvert first the school system then government.

The reality is: atheistic evolutionist push their "science" so hard because they hope it will back up their belief that God doesn't exist.

Too bad theres so many Christian evolutionists like Ken Miller.

They do all this research, and testing, and theorizing to prove to themself that God doesn't exist.

Lie.

This just goes to show that there is an a priori knowledge of God, .

I think it goes to show that you dont know what you're talking about.

and can only hope and pray God will show me the truth and turn my disbelief into faith.

So you can believe in the face of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Edial]

...

...Day for day interpretation is simplistic, since we have this -
2PE 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
...

Oy. So then he quotes another passage that has nothing to do with this passage from Moses nor creation. What happened to context?

...

It IS from Moses.
I just quoted Peter who quoted Moses.

Moses -
Psalm 90
A prayer of Moses the man of God.
PS 90:1 Lord, you have been our dwelling place
throughout all generations.
PS 90:2 Before the mountains were born
or you brought forth the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
PS 90:3 You turn men back to dust,
saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men."
PS 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

Ed

 

[Edial]

You should read Finding Darwins God by Ken Miller a Christian.



Lie.



Lie.



Creationists want to subvert first the school system then government.


Too bad theres so many Christian evolutionists like Ken Miller.


Lie.



I think it goes to show that you dont know what you're talking about.



So you can believe in the face of evidence to the contrary.

So, you are an atheist because there no evidence (to you) that there is God ... yet there is an evidence (to you) for evolution in a context that all came from ameba.

And you personally have an evidence that one-cell organism ameba came from ... what?

How would you disprove the grandiose miracles of Jesus Christ?
Never happened?

The enemies of Jesus Christ at the time, the Pharisees confirmed that there were miracles.
Ask any Orthodox Jew.

And these guys were very meticulous in disproving charlatans. It was to their immense advantage to disprove the Christ.
Yet they could not disagree what they saw, since the congregants of their own synagogues saw that and they could not lie to them.

Miracles did happen?

And if it did, how would you explain these incredible miracles of magnificent magnitute and quality happen by Natural means?
It points to Supernatural perhabs?

And do you really believe that we and what we see are the only life in Universe?

And if we are not alone, how can you say that God does not exist while there are miracles of Jesus Christ and billions of Christians and reasonably speaking life outside of what we see?

God does not exist?
People believe Jesus Christ. That is why they are Christians.

Now, why would a reasonable person disbelieve Jesus Christ concerning matters he personally has no idea about, such as the Supernatural, when Christ claimed to come from God, performed mind-numbing miracles of perfect quality and was never convicted of any sin by the Pharisees that knew him since he was a boy?

It is more reasonable to believe than to disbelieve.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[NASAg03]

You should read Finding Darwins God by Ken Miller a Christian.

Lie.

Lie.

Creationists want to subvert first the school system then government.

Too bad theres so many Christian evolutionists like Ken Miller.

Lie.

I think it goes to show that you dont know what you're talking about.

So you can believe in the face of evidence to the contrary.

What irriates me the most about these forums are the one-word responses. Why even bother? I was hoping for at least a philosophical counter-point, but all I get are accusations of lies.

Part of my desire to know God comes from a desire for meaning in life, and knowing God fulfills that meaning. I mean, apart from seeking to know God and make His existance known, what other meaning is there in life?

Atheists usually counter with "to be happy", "to be a loving father or husband", "to be with my friends"; more or less it ends up to be happy.

So, without God the meaning in life is the pursuit of happiness, assuming that doesn't intrude upon someone else's happiness (pedofiles, rapists, murderers, etc).

We end up with the following situation:

1. atheists believe the meaning of life is happiness
2. Christians believe the meaning of life is knowing God, and that makes them happy.
3. Atheists casting doubt upon my belief in God disrupts my happiness.

So you, being here on this forum, makes me question my meaning in life, and can cause me discomfort. But, God never said life would be nothing but daisies, so I dont mind you being here

Anyway, what is the problem in schools teaching both sides of the origins spectrum? Or better yet, any religion that can come up with evidence to support their side of the arguement gets to show that evidence in the classroom setting, time being proportional to the evidence. Questions that evolution has failed to answer should get just as much play as the "facts".

But this is the point that we realize why atheists don't want creation / ID taught in school: doubts. Doubts cause a person to re-think their lives, the meaning of their life, and if their beliefs really are true. Doubts cause stress and take away from happiness.

It's not the "lies" that creationism masks as science that gets evolutionists in an uproar: is the doubts that eat away at their happiness, the in-your-face fact that some people believe in something they can't believe in.

Actually, I would say the root cause of this whole matter is jealousy. Atheists can't believe in God, and are therefore jealous that Christians can. Christians have something they don't have, faith, and that makes them mad. If it didn't, they wouldn't waste their time arguing over it!

Now, we could lie and say the root of the matter is "truth", and that teaching creationism is tantamount to teaching untruth. So, now we shift to thinking that the meaning of life is finding "truth".

If God doesn't exist, how do we know truth even exists??? Even quantum world exists on unpredictability, uncertainty, and opposites (matter /anti-matter, positrons / electrons, etc). I would venture to say then that truth and untruth both exists, no-God and God...

 

[Vainglorious]

We end up with the following situation:

1. atheists believe the meaning of life is happiness
2. Christians believe the meaning of life is knowing God, and that makes them happy.
3. Atheists casting doubt upon my belief in God disrupts my happiness.

You may not have noticed this but you have just said both atheists and theists persue happiness - which contradicts your argument.

If your "happiness" is disrupted don't read posts by atheists.

Anyway, what is the problem in schools teaching both sides of the origins spectrum? Or better yet, any religion that can come up with evidence to support their side of the arguement gets to show that evidence in the classroom setting, time being proportional to the evidence. Questions that evolution has failed to answer should get just as much play as the "facts".

I would agree except don't call religious arguments science.

 

[Edx]

What irriates me the most about these forums are the one-word responses. Why even bother? I was hoping for at least a philosophical counter-point, but all I get are accusations of lies.

Im an atheist and you are telling me what I think, since Ive been around these debates against atheists for years now I know they dont think what you say they think either. Therefore, lie.

Forgive the short responce, I really should be in bed but its so bloody hot over here its hard to sleep. Edial, I'll post my reply to your post tomorrow.

Part of my desire to know God comes from a desire for meaning in life, and knowing God fulfills that meaning. I mean, apart from seeking to know God and make His existance known, what other meaning is there in life?

The meaning to your life is whatever you make it. For some people its to help others, for some its to get political power, for others its to earn a lot of money, for some its to have as much fun as they can, for others its to try and learn as much about this life as they can.

Atheists usually counter with "to be happy", "to be a loving father or husband", "to be with my friends"; more or less it ends up to be happy.

You said that atheists say we have no meaning in our lives except "to be happy" is just your interpretation of what they consider important. Since those that want care for others is very much a feeling that gives meaning to peoples lives saying that this "more or less ends up" to them wanting to be happy just suggests atheists are selfish.

So, without God the meaning in life is the pursuit of happiness, assuming that doesn't intrude upon someone else's happiness (pedofiles, rapists, murderers, etc).

I dont really understand this.

We end up with the following situation:

1. atheists believe the meaning of life is happiness

No, some atheists do but generalising like you are doing is just stupidity.

2. Christians believe the meaning of life is knowing God, and that makes them happy.

3. Atheists casting doubt upon my belief in God disrupts my happiness.

....uh huh, okay.... *wonders where this is going*

So you, being here on this forum, makes me question my meaning in life, and can cause me discomfort. But, God never said life would be nothing but daisies, so I dont mind you being here

Uh well ok thanks, but I see the above didnt actually go anywhere.

Anyway, what is the problem in schools teaching both sides of the origins spectrum?

You can teach Creationism in religion class where it belongs, but not in science class as it isnt science. Creationists want to leap the scientific method and scientific process through pop culture; books magazines and videos (and also the legal system) instead of trying to form a legitimate scientific theory.

Or better yet, any religion that can come up with evidence to support their side of the arguement gets to show that evidence in the classroom setting, time being proportional to the evidence.

They can say what they like in religous class so long as they dont try to pass it off as science.

Questions that evolution has failed to answer should get just as much play as the "facts".

What questions? Why dont you post them on another topic for people to look at, I think it will be very quickly shown to you that they are not so legitimate questions.

But this is the point that we realize why atheists don't want creation / ID taught in school: doubts. Doubts cause a person to re-think their lives, the meaning of their life, and if their beliefs really are true. Doubts cause stress and take away from happiness.

No we dont want Creation/ID in school because it isnt science. The Discovery Institute also lied many times about their agenda, and their book Pandas. This was all show to the world in the Dover trial, how much do you know of that?

It's not the "lies" that creationism masks as science that gets evolutionists in an uproar: is the doubts that eat away at their happiness, the in-your-face fact that some people believe in something they can't believe in.

This is called delusion, or just your plain old projection.

Actually, I would say the root cause of this whole matter is jealousy. Atheists can't believe in God, and are therefore jealous that Christians can. Christians have something they don't have, faith, and that makes them mad. If it didn't, they wouldn't waste their time arguing over it!

I cant speak for all atheists, but thats right I dont have faith. Faith is the very antithesis of science. I dont want to pretend I know something when I dont. Thats what faith is, to pretend you know something when you dont have real evidence to to base your belief on. Im not jealous of your faith at all, if I dont know something I just say I dont know, and all my beliefs are tentative. If someone shows me Im wrong about something it means I get closer to the truth or a more accurate understanding. I cant do that if I close myself off to ever changing my mind, but thats what you were hoping God would help you do. Thats why I dont have faith and dont want faith.

Now, we could lie and say the root of the matter is "truth", and that teaching creationism is tantamount to teaching untruth. So, now we shift to thinking that the meaning of life is finding "truth".

Creationism isnt scientific, if you want to believe it is "true" anyway go ahead just dont pretend it is and try and get it taught as science in schools.

If God doesn't exist, how do we know truth even exists???

If I understand what you mean by "truth" even if there is, we cant know for absolute certainty what that "truth" is.

Even quantum world exists on unpredictability, uncertainty, and opposites (matter /anti-matter, positrons / electrons, etc). I would venture to say then that truth and untruth both exists, no-God and God...

....This is a bit too metaphysical even for me.

Ed

 

[Pats]

I wont lie - I have doubts about the existance of God.

Asking questions is always good.

My faith is still relatively young and coming into an existance of it's own. Everytime I read a new "fact" proclaiming evolution, new questions and unbelief enters my life. This also affects my relationship with God, and I ended up spending a few weeks apart because I feel He has let me down and deceived me.

This would be a very good conversation starter in Origins Theology Come on up and pay us a visit.

But maybe the people you should be asking this question to is the atheists who so strongly believe in and push evolutionism. Afterall - they claim we came from nothing and our lives have no meaning...other than "to be happy".

So this begs the question: why you are sitting here, at your computer, staring at a 17" monitor, alone, getting worked up and arguing over what you consider nothing???

I mean, the atheistic life is short, and surely there are better things you can be doing than arguing with a bunch of fundamentalist Christians online. You can't tell me that this makes you "happy". If all I had in my existance was 70 years +/- 20 years, I would be makign the most of it, partying, enjoying the great outdoors, and being with my family and friends.

The reality is: atheistic evolutionist push their "science" so hard because they hope it will back up their belief that God doesn't exist. They do all this research, and testing, and theorizing to prove to themself that God doesn't exist.

This just goes to show that there is an a priori knowledge of God, and when a person doesn't have the faith to believe in God, they will go to great lengths to show that God doesn't exist.

If God doesn't exist, why are you wasting your short time on life proving that He doesn't exist, and on internet message boards no less?

Now, some of you may turn this question around and say "why are Christians doing the same thing?" Well, I've already stated that I have my doubts, and can only hope and pray God will show me the truth and turn my disbelief into faith. But I've also been comissioned to share my faith with others, and to share in the Good News of Jesus Christ. I'm not allowed to "just be happy", because if I just go throug life trying to enjoy it, then there might be someone who gets fed a lie and spends an eternity away from God, and that makes me very unhappy.

I find it is usually best to anwer specific statements made by specific people, rather than say some thing that clumps everybody together like "most atheists usually...." I find that most of the atheists here do not do that to Christians. I also get annoyed when people clump all the TEs or YECs together.

 

[michabo]

Everytime I read a new "fact" proclaiming evolution, new questions and unbelief enters my life.

I suggest you get your beliefs straight, if you find that you are challenged by observations of reality.

So this begs the question: why you are sitting here, at your computer, staring at a 17" monitor, alone, getting worked up and arguing over what you consider nothing???

If God exists, then why are you getting worked up by people who reject him?

I'm not allowed to "just be happy", because if I just go throug life trying to enjoy it, then there might be someone who gets fed a lie and spends an eternity away from God, and that makes me very unhappy.

Once you resort to faith, how can you discriminate between an incorrect faith and a correct faith?

 

[NASAg03]

Im an atheist and you are telling me what I think, since Ive been around these debates against atheists for years now I know they dont think what you say they think either. Therefore, lie.

I'm human, and have a pretty good idea what other humans think and feel, well basic thoughts and feelings at least. I've also been in numerous discussions with atheists, and most of them aswer the "meaning of life" question with happiness, or family, or serving. Regardless, whatever you do in life you will do to give you happiness. If you didn't enjoy it, you wouldn't do it!

That's NO lie!

The meaning to your life is whatever you make it. For some people its to help others, for some its to get political power, for others its to earn a lot of money, for some its to have as much fun as they can, for others its to try and learn as much about this life as they can.

The basic human desire is pleasure. Just look at us: overweight, sex-crazed, in debt. You can't tell me the basic focus for people in life isn't pleasure.

You said that atheists say we have no meaning in our lives except "to be happy" is just your interpretation of what they consider important. Since those that want care for others is very much a feeling that gives meaning to peoples lives saying that this "more or less ends up" to them wanting to be happy just suggests atheists are selfish.

I never said that. There are atheists that are much more serving, giving, and Christ-like than a number of Chistians. If a atheist derrives his pleasure / happiness in life from serving others, that still makes him no different than the glutton or powermonder, all of whom see pleasure in life.

Before you twist that statement, realize that just because Christ served, that doesn't mean He did that for pleasure, but rather out of love.

Yes, I realize there are people who tend to be exceptions to the "pleasure" rule, but those are few and far between, and tend to be the exception to that rule.

I dont really understand this.

More or less restating the founding fathers, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Everyone should get a chance to pursue their idea of happiness, assuming what gives them pleasure doesn't directly or indirectly detract from the happiness of another person.

No, some atheists do but generalising like you are doing is just stupidity.

Generalizing about basic human nature.

You can teach Creationism in religion class where it belongs, but not in science class as it isnt science. Creationists want to leap the scientific method and scientific process through pop culture; books magazines and videos (and also the legal system) instead of trying to form a legitimate scientific theory.

Nope. A lot of the research they present is founded using the same basic observation and measurement techniques as their evolutionist counterparts. Yeah, some creationist have faked their data, but that doesn't mean you can stereotype the entire lot of them. A number of evolutionist / atheistic scientists fake or fudge data to "prove" their point.

That's what this all comes down to: proving a point. It all starts with a question, turns into a hypothesis, and then theories and tests to answer that question.

What is that question: does God exist? Evolutionism / naturalism makes the hypothesis that God indeed does not exist and that the universe had to come into existence through natural means, apart from God. All science and data discovery goes into proving this hypothesis true.

And when someone tries to prove the antithesis true, yall call it religion, even if they use the same techniques, make similar assumptions, and have just as likely theories.

They can say what they like in religous class so long as they dont try to pass it off as science.

No we dont want Creation/ID in school because it isnt science. The Discovery Institute also lied many times about their agenda, and their book Pandas. This was all show to the world in the Dover trial, how much do you know of that?[/quote]

As opposed to the "bias free" classroom of evolutionary science, which also lies about it's agenda to prove that God need not exist?

The modern-day science class is nothing more than the church of evolutionism.

I cant speak for all atheists, but thats right I dont have faith. Faith is the very antithesis of science. I dont want to pretend I know something when I dont. Thats what faith is, to pretend you know something when you dont have real evidence to to base your belief on. Im not jealous of your faith at all, if I dont know something I just say I dont know, and all my beliefs are tentative. If someone shows me Im wrong about something it means I get closer to the truth or a more accurate understanding. I cant do that if I close myself off to ever changing my mind, but thats what you were hoping God would help you do. Thats why I dont have faith and dont want faith.

Science is never going to show you to anything beyond the physical world. If the truth exists beyond the physical world, you will never find it through the scientific method. You have already made up your mind that you don't want faith, so in the event that the truth lies beyond the physical world, you will never get closer to the truth or have more accurate understanding.
Creationism isnt scientific, if you want to believe it is "true" anyway go ahead just dont pretend it is and try and get it taught as science in schools.

If I understand what you mean by "truth" even if there is, we cant know for absolute certainty what that "truth" is.

You never plainly stated your meaning in life, but from your statements I'm guessing it's to "get closer to the truth or have more accurate understanding."

Obviously you seek knowledge. This makes me wonder why you're on christianforums.com, since creationists lie and God doesn't exist, meaning neither of those things can bring you truth.

Why do you spend so much time here, instead of at the library or on the couch reading to gain knowledge and understanding? Why don't you spend every waking hour and minute finding the answers to the questions you seek, and getting closer to the truth, rather than debating with closed-minded Christians?

EDIT: missed a few quote tags...

 

[Pats]

Nope. A lot of the research they present is founded using the same basic observation and measurement techniques as their evolutionist counterparts.

You may want to investigate that on your own. If you do, you may see that creation "science" is not actually science. I honestly thought that at one time myself.

Evolutionism / naturalism makes the hypothesis that God indeed does not exist and that the universe had to come into existence through natural means, apart from God.

I see you've said you're new to the faith, and kinda new around these parts too. Actually, you will find here and all around many Christians who do not think Genesis was intended as a scientific account of creation who accept the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution does not say anything at all about God or how life began. Evolution deals with the observable life that was already here.

Science can neither proove nor disproove the existance of God, nor does it even dabble in such phylosphical arenas.

Evolution does not equal atheism at all.

All science and data discovery goes into proving this hypothesis true.

Actually, if a scientists could falsify evolution he'd probably win great honors and awards.

I'm not gonna debate your post bit by bit, but I really needed to point some of this out.

 

[DamonWV]

Why do some Christians fear evolution so much? There are many forums online (And sites, and other things) that have only the specific use to try and dismantle Evolution. Why? I mean, if they believed that Evolution was wrong and stuff, why even feel threatened by it?

So, why do many Christians attack Evolution like its a plague?

Actually thats the other way around. Evolutionists severely attack creationists points of view. A creation merely tries to defend a creation point of view , and points out the flaws of evolutionary thinking.

Evolutionists seem to think that science and the bible cant go hand in hand, when there is actually a great deal of science in the bible. Not to mention that our founding fathers of most of our fields of science were devout christians, ans based all their therios with a biblical foundation.

One of the best websites i have found for creation was ken hams website answersingenesis.org That website is hit over 1 million times a month. That is an amazing number of hits . So many people looking for answers, and they all are. Their website and ideal are under constant fire from people, but they never go out of their way to attack other website sites of different views.

 

[jwu]

Welcome to ChristianForums!

I think you'll be somewhat surprised if you hang out a big here, expecially on this board.

Actually thats the other way around. Evolutionists severely attack creationists points of view. A creation merely tries to defend a creation point of view , and points out the flaws of evolutionary thinking.

Actually it were creationists who started that conflict by trying to push their unscientific points of view into science class.

Evolutionists seem to think that science and the bible cant go hand in hand, when there is actually a great deal of science in the bible.

Please don't generalize. E.g. theistic evolutionists don't have any objections there, and even many atheistic evolutionists don't mind that.

Not to mention that our founding fathers of most of our fields of science were devout christians, ans based all their therios with a biblical foundation.

Could you give some specific examples?


Anyway; let's get back to science in the Bible for a moment. There is some in it, in a somewhat distorted manner, but we certainly disagree about what is part of this and what is not. I guess you take the noachian flood as part of that, that it's a historical description of a real life event.

Now, in order for something to be scientific, it has to be falsifiable.
What would you accept as a falsification of the noachian flood?

 

[Jase]

One of the best websites i have found for creation was ken hams website answersingenesis.org That website is hit over 1 million times a month. That is an amazing number of hits . So many people looking for answers, and they all are. Their website and ideal are under constant fire from people, but they never go out of their way to attack other website sites of different views.

As a friendly point of advice, don't rely on AnswersinGenesis as your source for scientific inquiry. It is not science. Take this from a former YEC who used it a lot.

 

[Dannager]

Evolutionists severely attack creationists points of view.

Not so. Spend a few days on this forum and check out the threads started. The ones that take off are the creationists' claims against evolution. Creationists are definitely the ones on the attack here.

A creation merely tries to defend a creation point of view , and points out the flaws of evolutionary thinking.

Again, not so. Please spend some time on this board and read the threads. I have a feeling you've had an extremely limited exposure to this debate.

Evolutionists seem to think that science and the bible cant go hand in hand, when there is actually a great deal of science in the bible.

On the contrary, many of us are theistic evolutionists who expressly believe that Christianity and evolution are not in conflict with one another. As for a great deal of science being in the Bible, the majority of such examples are cryptic phrases that those looking to support their standpoint use, claiming that, of the hundred possible interpretations, the one that supports their point is the correct one. Unfortunately, that's not science by a long stretch. The Bible is, and always has been, a text on spiritual well-being and morality.

Not to mention that our founding fathers of most of our fields of science were devout christians, ans based all their therios with a biblical foundation.

On the contrary, while they certainly were Christian their theories were based on the scientific method (at least following the scientific revolution, at which point modern scientific fields began), not a "Biblical foundation".

One of the best websites i have found for creation was ken hams website answersingenesis.org

Unfortunately AIG is rather infamous here for being rather chock full of inaccuracies and flat-out lies. Most of us have thoroughly perused AIG's website simply so that we know how to properly explain their factual errors and attempts at misleading.

That website is hit over 1 million times a month.

A shame that so many place their trust in an organization devoid of both theological and scientific truth.

So many people looking for answers, and they all are.

Resulting in so many people having wrong answers. We do our best to point them out, but people have to be willing to listen.

Their website and ideal are under constant fire from people, but they never go out of their way to attack other website sites of different views.

They are under fire for attempting to have creationism taught as valid science, when it is anything but. I think trying to undermine the education system is worth some criticism.

 

[Edx]

I'm human, and have a pretty good idea what other humans think and feel, well basic thoughts and feelings at least. I've also been in numerous discussions with atheists, and most of them aswer the "meaning of life" question with happiness, or family, or serving. Regardless, whatever you do in life you will do to give you happiness. If you didn't enjoy it, you wouldn't do it!

That's NO lie!

But it is when you pick on atheists in particular and suggest they are selfish people only interested in their own happyness

The basic human desire is pleasure. Just look at us: overweight, sex-crazed, in debt. You can't tell me the basic focus for people in life isn't pleasure.

And theres a case to be made that that is correct, but its irrelevant since you werent talking about all humans just about atheists.

I never said that.

You should take a closer look at what you're saying then.

No, some atheists do but generalising like you are doing is just stupidity

. Generalizing about basic human nature.

No, you were generalising about atheists.

Nope. A lot of the research they present is founded using the same basic observation and measurement techniques as their evolutionist counterparts.

Just because one uses the same tools as a chef doesnt make one a chef.

Yeah, some creationist have faked their data, but that doesn't mean you can stereotype the entire lot of them.

Sure, but I have never known a Creatrionist to either not be deliberatly dishonest in their presentation of evolution or be ignorent of the subject they claim to be an authority on.

A number of evolutionist / atheistic scientists fake or fudge data to "prove" their point.

Such as? Theres been a few scientific frauds, but those have been exposed by other scientists (not Creationists) and done for fame and fortune not to prove evolution for some lofty collaborative anti-god agenda you make out.

What is that question: does God exist?

No that isnt the question. It cant even be hypothetically verified so is not something Science can even comment on.

You can debate it in philosophy and religion but it aint science.

Evolutionism / naturalism makes the hypothesis that God indeed does not exist and that the universe had to come into existence through natural means, apart from God.

Evolution doesnt equal atheism.

All science and data discovery goes into proving this hypothesis true.

No it doesnt. Thats another lie Creationists have fed you you have apparently believed without question.

And when someone tries to prove the antithesis true, yall call it religion, even if they use the same techniques, make similar assumptions, and have just as likely theories.

Of course we call it religion, thats exactly what it is. Literally. It cant be science if they need to throw science out the window at points to say "a miracle occured here".

As opposed to the "bias free" classroom of evolutionary science, which also lies about it's agenda to prove that God need not exist?

The modern-day science class is nothing more than the church of evolutionism.

The difference is I can prove the Discovery Institute lied, whereas the above is just delusional conspiracy theories. Again, what do you know of the Dover trial?

Science is never going to show you to anything beyond the physical world. If the truth exists beyond the physical world, you will never find it through the scientific method. You have already made up your mind that you don't want faith, so in the event that the truth lies beyond the physical world, you will never get closer to the truth or have more accurate understanding.

If there is something other than the physical world, Im not going to pretend I know it. Having faith in it wont make it true, and if Im wrong I'll never know and never let myself know. Whats the point in that?!

You never plainly stated your meaning in life, but from your statements I'm guessing it's to "get closer to the truth or have more accurate understanding."

One of many, but if that were my main goal I would become a scientist.

Obviously you seek knowledge. This makes me wonder why you're on christianforums.com, since creationists lie and God doesn't exist, meaning neither of those things can bring you truth.

I think its fun to argue with Creationists, its also interesting to me to see if its possible to reason with them. Othertimes its like watching a car wreck, you just cant turn your head away.

 

[Edx]

So, you are an atheist because there no evidence (to you) that there is God ... yet there is an evidence (to you) for evolution in a context that all came from ameba.

Yes, there is.

And you personally have an evidence that one-cell organism ameba came from ... what?

Abiogenesis is the field of science that looks into these questions. But its irrelevant, im not at atheist becuase I think I know the answers.

How would you disprove the grandiose miracles of Jesus Christ?
Never happened?

How would you disprove other miracles performed in other holy texts?

The enemies of Jesus Christ at the time, the Pharisees confirmed that there were miracles.
Ask any Orthodox Jew.

We are conned today by illusionists that perform these tricks all the while actually saying "this is a illusion, this isnt real, this is psychological". People seeing these 3,000 years ago and being told they are real would believe it. Im not saying Jesus was a master illusionist, just that people can really believe they saw something that never actually happened. Most of the reason we think Jesus did miracles comes soly from the Bible, there is no contempory accounts written by anyone. You cant use the Bible to prove the Bible.

And do you really believe that we and what we see are the only life in Universe?

Why would I think that? Creationists are the ones that usually tell me we are alone in the universe, that the universe was made for our benefit and for us alone. I think other life has to exist elsewhere, even if its a rare event, the universe is just too big for the conditions never to be repeated. That sounds vastly improbable to me. Perhaps this is not the question you meant to ask.

And if we are not alone, how can you say that God does not exist while there are miracles of Jesus Christ and billions of Christians and reasonably speaking life outside of what we see?

Mass faith in something doesnt impress me, evidence does.

God does not exist?
People believe Jesus Christ. That is why they are Christians.

So because people believe in something, it therefore exists? What kind of screwed up logic is that?

Now, why would a reasonable person disbelieve Jesus Christ concerning matters he personally has no idea about, such as the Supernatural, when Christ claimed to come from God, performed mind-numbing miracles of perfect quality and was never convicted of any sin by the Pharisees that knew him since he was a boy?

You think this sounds like a logical and reasonable argument? This is nothing more than rhetorical apolgistic doublethink. What do you think any of that actually means?

It is more reasonable to believe than to disbelieve.

If it were you wouldnt need faith to believe it, and I dont want faith becuase that means it cant it be taken on its own merits.