proving evolution as just a "theory"

[bhsmte]

if you say so kylie...

Actually, your posts say so.

 

[xianghua]

You are simply flat out wrong. Modern species evolving into another modern species that already exists would completely defy the theory of evolution. By the process of evolution, such an event, even with the proper selective pressures in place, would be impossible, due to the fact that mutations are random and the shear number of them that would have to happen for a cat population to transition into a dog population.

can you show me your calculation? also: who talked about modern species?

Metamorphosis is not evolution dude, it's caterpillar puberty. Did you really not know that, or are you messing with me?

i never said it is. i said that its very similar to something that can be suggested in the case of a cat evolving into dog example.

 

[PsychoSarah]

can you show me your calculation? also: who talked about modern species?

You said cats and dogs, the latter of which is definitively a modern species, and you'd just be trying to utilize your own vague post to say that the cats you were talking about weren't modern ones, seeing as you said "if we saw cats evolving into dogs". I can't see something that happens in the past directly, now can I?

As for calculation, you yourself have sort of done it for me in other threads. That is, you say that the chance of a given mutation occurring is something like 1/10^30. So, which argument do you want to abandon, buddy, because you can't have both since they conflict with each other. That is, you can't think the chances of specific mutations occurring are low and think that it is reasonable

i never said it is. i said that its very similar to something that can be suggested in the case of a cat evolving into dog example.

Word for word quote from you: "very similar to a caterpillar evolving into a butterfly."

Metamorphosis and evolution are entirely different processes that work via different principles. If I was literally watching a cat form a cocoon and come out as a dog,
1. I'd take myself to the hospital, because someone must of slipped me one hell of a drug.
2. That'd be an example of metamorphosis... which is hypothetical and irrelevant to actual metamorphosis or evolution.

 

[pitabread]

So let’s say animal 1 has genetic strain A and B and animal 2 has C and D. Now it’s offspring can have A, B, C or D or a combination of A/B, A/C, A/D, B/A etc, etc.

For a diploid organism, we would have a maximum of 2 alleles at a given locus in their genome. Meaning, if we started with only 2 organisms, that's a maximum of 4 possible alleles for a given gene.

Meanwhile, there are genes for which we have identified vastly more than 4 alleles. For example, the HLA gene family has thousands of identified alleles (and that's just identified alleles; there could be far more than that).

So where did all these other alleles come from?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lol

For someone who gets so upset about terminology and definitions you’re playing fast and loose with the term ‘inbreeding’!

Not at all, shall we go look that definition up too so you can then ignore that as well?

inbreeding | genetics

“inbreeding, the mating of individuals or organisms that are closely related through common ancestry, as opposed to outbreeding, which is the mating of unrelated organisms. ”

Hmmm, seems you do indeed have problems with accepting scientific definitions. Or are you claiming black bears aren’t every one closely related through common ancestry?

 

[Ophiolite]

Not at all, shall we go look that definition up too so you can then ignore that as well?

inbreeding | genetics

“inbreeding, the mating of individuals or organisms that are closely related through common ancestry, as opposed to outbreeding, which is the mating of unrelated organisms. ”

Hmmm, seems you do indeed have problems with accepting scientific definitions. Or are you claiming black bears aren’t every one closely related through common ancestry?

Define closely.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

For a diploid organism, we would have a maximum of 2 alleles at a given locus in their genome. Meaning, if we started with only 2 organisms, that's a maximum of 4 possible alleles for a given gene.

No, two alleles for every possible phonetic trait. Mother carries two, daddy carries two.

Meanwhile, there are genes for which we have identified vastly more than 4 alleles. For example, the HLA gene family has thousands of identified alleles (and that's just identified alleles; there could be far more than that).

So meanwhile I can disregard your claim of only two as not holding true then.

So where did all these other alleles come from?

Wrong question. The question you should ask is what happened to all the others? Can we say loss of variability through inbreeding?

Let’s be honest. You observe mostly two, but recognize some have been found to have more. Since you know inbreeding is happening which reduces genetic variability, the logical deduction is not where the extra came from, but that most were lost from that inbreeding and reduction in genetic variability.

Your flawed starting point closes your mind to the true event of reduction in variability, even if inbreeding is all you observe.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Define closely.

Why, you’ll just ignore that too.

“Biology A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.“

 

[Ophiolite]

Why, you’ll just ignore that too.

What did I previously ignore? If I have done so, it was an oversight. Please refer me to the relevant post and I'll address that before dealing with the matter of inbreeding and close relationships.(Though I would have thought it was obvious that inbreeding is about very close relationships. The sort, for example, that in humans are called incestuous. "Close" is a qualitative term and the context of its usage is critical to understanding its meaning.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Great! You know that we don’t need to rely on these vague generalities now that we can examine DNA in such great detail. Maybe you can test your hypothesis with some real world data?

How about small dogs? You like dogs right?

Sure let’s discuss small dogs which are descended from the middle eastern wolf and not the grey wolf as are larger dogs.

The grey wolf simply lost traits still found in the middle eastern wolf. But there’s that loss of genetic variability from inbreeding in the grey wolf.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What did I previously ignore? If I have done so, it was an oversight. Please refer me to the relevant post and I'll address that before dealing with the matter of inbreeding and close relationships.(Though I would have thought it was obvious that inbreeding is about very close relationships. The sort, for example, that in humans are called incestuous. "Close" is a qualitative term and the context of its usage is critical to understanding its meaning.)

Are you claiming all black bears are not closely related?

 

[Ophiolite]

Are you claiming all black bears are not closely related?

Not to the extent that a mating pair are necessarily inbreeding. The genetic diversity is great enough for that not to be an automatic consequence of a successful mating.

I noticed you ignored my request to tell me what I had ignored. Would you rectify that now please?

 

[Speedwell]

Are you claiming all black bears are not closely related?

No more than all human beings.

 

[pitabread]

So meanwhile I can disregard your claim of only two as not holding true then.

Two per individual. When I say they are thousands of identified alleles for particular genes, I'm talking about within the broader human population.

So again where did they all come from?

 

[rjs330]

Believers who don't trust the Bible? Who are they? For my part, I trust the Bible entirely--it is the word of God, after all.
No intelligent, literate person could dismiss a complex collection of texts like the Bible as entirely a single literary genre. The thought is absurd. Even non-believers are unlikely to do that.

I prefer to distrust your reading of Genesis.

But you don't trust God's own words. The ones he spoke in Exodus.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not to the extent that a mating pair are necessarily inbreeding. The genetic diversity is great enough for that not to be an automatic consequence of a successful mating.

And yet black bears remain black bears. Their genetic diversity never increases until they mate with another subspecies in their species. Such as polar bears. Or are you going to ignore the definition of subspecies because someone long ago thought they couldn’t interbreed and so incorrectly called them separate species?

Just as the Afro-Asian is more genetically diverse than both the Asian and the African. Because both the Asian and African are products of inbreeding which led to their specific traits. Just as black bears are products of inbreeding which led to their specific traits.

I noticed you ignored my request to tell me what I had ignored. Would you rectify that now please?

Depends, do you agree that interbreeding animals are the same species?

I listed several pages ago every scientific definition of species. Are you agreeing with the scientific definition or ignoring it?

I mean you have already tried to double-talk your way around black bears being closely related.

 

[Ophiolite]

And yet black bears remain black bears. Their genetic diversity never increases until they mate with another subspecies in their species. Such as polar bears. Or are you going to ignore the definition of subspecies because someone long ago thought they couldn’t interbreed and so incorrectly called them separate species?

Just as the Afro-Asian is more genetically diverse than both the Asian and the African. Because both the Asian and African are products of inbreeding which led to their specific traits. Just as black bears are products of inbreeding which led to their specific traits.


Depends, do you agree that interbreeding animals are the same species?

I listed several pages ago every scientific definition of species. Are you agreeing with the scientific definition or ignoring it?

I mean you have already tried to double-talk your way around black bears being closely related.

I shall respond tomorrow. It is well past midnight. I trust you will be more courteous in future exchanges.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Hey hey.

My dear, I do not mean to use faith (noun1) in relation to God because you do not have faith (noun 1) in God.

I chose faith noun 1 in relation to your belief system - trust . The atheists i have encountered fervently say they have no religious faith - this would cancel out noun 2.

Faith noun 2 - strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Atheists do not base their trust on spiritual conviction. Noun 2 does not qualify with atheist belief my friend.

Faith noun 1 - complete trust or confidence in someone or something. This would qualify.

Bugs - " Well, I can say I don't really have 'complete trust in something' either, so perhaps I don't even have that kind of faith"

So my friend, do you not have complete trust in evolution? Is there doubt?

I have about as much trust in the Theory of Evolution as a rational person could be - 99% maybe? I can't say I doubt Evolution, there's just too much in the way of evidence in support of it. The fact that the model is also used every day by people of all walks of life to produce real world benefits and outcomes is simply too hard to ignore.

What I can do though - if I did doubt any findings of Evolution, I can pick up most peer reviewed research papers and examine the data and findings myself. I can often rerun the experiment if I was really in doubt, and worst case scenario, I can recreate the dataset by replicating the experiment procedure and controls from scratch. Even if I have to borrow a lab and labtime to do it, it can indeed be done.

This is how peer review is done and how fake science is found out and discarded.

Conny - "Would you accept something if you had no trust in it?"

Bugsy - "Generally, No."

Conny - "If i have no trust in a belief, why would i accept it?"

Busgsy - "I don't know about you, but I wouldn't..."

Conny - "How would a lack of trust effect my belief system?"

Bugsy - "I don't know - are you asking me what you're supposed to think, or are you asking me what I would think?"

Conny - "i would have a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction - doubt. It would effect my belief system which would result in some form of uncertainty."

You, your friend, myself, andrew down the road, gerald the gardner, trust our belief systems.

If we did not trust we would.not believe!!!!!

My dear even you agree!

"If i have no trust in a belief, why would i accept it?"

Busgsy - "I don't know about you, but I wouldn't..."

This seems to be a little unusual, not sure why you want to add unnecessary layers of separation but we build models of reality by which we use to navigate our way through it. I can trust a model of the universe that continues to produce reliable results, a process by which I can confirm with my own senses and degrees of rationality coupled with logic. I should be able to reproduce and verify these results in a consistent fashion, the more I can do this, the more trust I apportion to it. There is no such thing as 100% trust. By the same token though, I have to highlight that 99% trust is not equivalent to 0%. Regarding atheism and evolution, these things obviously require different levels of trust. Atheism (i.e. absence of a belief in a deity/ies) is the default position. This is evidenced by the many religions practiced all over the world where the adherents are either indoctrinated into a particular religion endemic to their particular culture (like USA, India and Turkey), or they have low to no religious inclination at all (such as Japan, Norway and Australia).

I hope you don't think I have 0% trust in my model of reality? Why would you think that?

"Hinduism: Miracles are a major part of the Hindu tradition. In addition to the feats of gods and goddesses described in Hindu scripture, many believe that human mystics can perform amazing feats such as healing the sick, levitating themselves, and surviving for years without eating or drinking."

Healing the sick seems like the only thing in common hear. Christians do not believe in leviating themselves or surving for years with no sustainance.

Unless you would like to argue for these 2 things, it would seem strange to argue for something you do not agree could happen my friend.

List of miracles

You can control a mad elephant - dont know if i would call this an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

You can shut the mouth of bear or tiger - dont know if i would call this an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency. Be my friend an md argue for this miracle

You can ride a lion - dont know if i would call this an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

You can play with the cobra - dont know if i would call this an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

You can make a living by alchemy - wanna go anywhere with this one?

You can wander through the world incognito - having one's true identity concealed.- dont know if i would call this an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

You can make vassals of the gods - a holder of land by feudal tenure on conditions of homage and allegiance with gods.

You can be ever youthful - that i would call a miracle but due to ageing seems unlikely. Christians would drem this as vanity.

You can walk on water - Jesus did that!!!!

You can live in fire - brother how are things anyway?

You can achieve all Siddhis at home - complete understanding; enlightenment - enlightment - blow put the candle - no action.

But to control the mind is rare and difficult - its called discpline my hindu friend - not directed to you but figuratively to the author.

There are only 2 miracles that a similar to Christianity ie walk on water and healing the sick. These 2 may be due to a christian influence on hinduism. There is a tradition that Thomas got to India.

According to scholars, the Visuddhimagga is one of the extremely rare texts within the enormous literatures of various forms of Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism to give explicit details about how spiritual masters were thought to actually manifest supernormal abilities.

Abilities such as flying through the air, walking through solid obstructions, diving into the ground, walking on water and so forth are performed by changing one element, such as earth, into another element, such as air.

Visuddhimagga. The Visuddhimagga (Pali; English The Path of Purification), is the 'great treatise' on Theravada Buddhist doctrine written by Buddhaghosa approximately in the 5th Century in Sri Lanka.

My friend 400 years after Christ. These miracles seems debatable to me and with exception to 2, are not similar to christian miracles.

All miracles are at the very least, debatable. Do you know how many miracles of any faith have ever been confirmed? Remember, the Hindu religion and its saints have claims every bit as comparable as Judaism, Christianity and Islam and it predates all of them.

If you really want to do it properly, the records of miracles claimed by the Egyptian religions predates all religions alive today. See: Ancient Egypt - Light Of The World, Volume 2 for some great examples... they too include pretty much all the miracles claimed by both the old and new testaments. There's no way that even Judaism can claim to be original in this respect, let alone Christianity.

My dear if you are convinced then subscribe to it. Im not convinced so i wont. I have already had my experiences with God and got the proof.

Exodus 23:13 ESV / 94 helpful votes

“Pay attention to all that I have said to you, and make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let it be heard on your lips.

Isaiah 44:6 ESV / 88 helpful votes

Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Deuteronomy 6:14 ESV / 86 helpful votes

You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you—

John 14:6 ESV / 70 helpful votes

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Im 100% certain of God. I know Him and He knows me. I subscribe to what He says. Whether these gods exist or not, iam to only praise Him.

I cannot stop you friend, If you like what you read and hear about hinduism.

Im aware of the vedas but have not read them and do not have any intention to do so. Im aware of its subject matter and have google at my disposal.

What makes the vedas a better read than the Bible and a better contender for your salvation?

It has a better outlook than the bible does on matters of humanity for one, they don't subscribe to plagues as a divine punishment for example. They predate all the Judeo-Christian religions by hundreds if not thousands of years and has been in existence continuously since then too, there's another reason - this isn't the point though. If you read the Qur'An, you'll find passages there that will tell you exactly the same thing about following other Gods besides Allah. Likewise, you'll easily find Muslims that are equally 100% convinced Allah is the one true God and Mohammed his final messenger because of direct divine interaction with Allah. Same with Hindus, Janists, Bah'ai, Bhuddists in relation to their God(s) or lack thereof.

Your view about your religion is no different to theirs, this is what I see.

What testimonies are you aware of?

My dear, Who are we trying to convince here?

Im curious. Are you thinking about becoming a hindu? Do you believe in miracles?

Why are you trying argue for something you dont believe in? Do you have doubt in your atheist position? Or have you a presumption that all religions are the same?

All religions are the same. This isn't a presumption though, this is my observation. I'm thinking of becoming a Hindu as much as I'm considering becoming a Christian. What would put me over the edge for either religion (well, any religion really) is evidence. Knowing what I know about the fallibility of our senses and our predisposition to confirmation bias, I simply can't believe something first, then go looking for evidence for it, this would be dishonest and I'd be doing myself a disservice by doing that.

My dear The early and first christian church was made up of Jews!!
The 12 disciples, the 120, the 5000 and so on.

Messianic Jews accept Jesus and keep the Law. There are Jews who accept christ my dear.

Right, of course. Messianic Jews are really Christians who maintain their Jewish cultural heritage and customs. Judaism as a religion though, doesn't accept Jesus to be Emmanuel. They are indeed still waiting for their Saviour. To me, the Jews would be the experts on Jewish holy scripture, not Christians.

My friend you are jumping the gun here. You must wait till we are down with the first section.

Unless you feel we are done? (I do not)

Not at all, I'm in no rush and I'd much prefer to explore all of these points thoroughly before moving on to the next.

I have had experiences with God through the christian formula.

Was it luck, coincidence, or destiny. I do not know and how can i know out of which 3. I found God, got my proof and thats all that matters.

I got my proof for a Christian God, why should i consider any other god if im 100% certain of the Christian God?

Ps
If i was born non christian and never knew God? Would you like me to speculate?

I would challenge you on being 100% certain of the Christian God - are you saying for example that Satan wouldn't be capable of fooling you into not following Allah, the one true God and his final Messenger, Mohammed? How can you tell that it was your Christian God that could be the only cause for your confirmation and not some other trickster God, or Satan of some other God wanting to hide the identity of the actual God he doesn't want you to know exists? (and no, I don't believe in any of these to be true)

Hinduism - reincarnation, karma. 3 schools of thought. Lets look at the modern one.

Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, theUltimate Reality in the universe.

Brahman is a key concept found in the Vedas, and it is extensively discussed in the earlyUpanishads.The Vedas conceptualize Brahman as the Cosmic Principle

Brahman is discussed in Hindu texts with the concept of Atman (Soul, Self),personal impersonal or Para Brahman, or in various combinations of these qualities depending on the philosophical school.

In Hindu cosmology, the universe is cyclically created and destroyed. Its cosmology divides time into four epochs or Yuga, of which the current period is the Kali Yuga.

I do not believe in karma. I believe in the odds!

Islam - submit to the words of allah as revealed by mohammad. Next subject. Dont forget my friend, the jews reject islam too.

Buhuddism - enlightment, release from karma to nirvana. No action, no desire, no attachmemt = nothing. Bhuddism does not convince me at all and i think it is a hindu loophole or heresy ie escape the wheel.

Now, what makes your religion different to them? Have you ever sat down and talked to the passionate adherents of any of these faiths and asked them why they believe their religion and not yours? because I have.

Christianity teaches us who the Creator is and what He wants from.us. Amen!!!!!

Jesus Christ offers real hope. He gives mankind the opportunity to become right with God and his fellowman. Thus Christianity offers a full life to those who will accept Jesus: “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it abundantly” (John 10:10, KJV).

The grace offered us, through our profession of faith in Christ, changes everything! There are five terms that describe what Christianity offers: (1) justification, (2) redemption, (3) reconciliation, (4) forgiveness, and (5) sonship. Hallelujah!!!!

All injustices will be judged by God, God offers you a purpose in your life, God offers a reward and God offers love, hope and faith.

Jeremiah 29:11

For I know the plans I have for you," says the Lord. “They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope.

Matthew 11:28-29

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Isaiah 40:29-31

He gives power to the weak
and strength to the powerless.
Even youths will become weak and tired,
and young men will fall in exhaustion.
But those who trust in the Lord will find new strength.
They will soar high on wings like eagles.
They will run and not grow weary.
They will walk and not faint.

Philippians 4:19

And this same God who takes care of me will supply all your needs from his glorious riches, which have been given to us in Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:37-39

No, despite all these things, overwhelming victory is ours through Christ, who loved us.

And I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from God’s love. Neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither our fears for today nor our worries about tomorrow—not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below—indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus o
Proverbs 1:33

But all who listen to me will live in peace,
untroubled by fear of harm."

John 14:27

“I am leaving you with a gift—peace of mind and heart. And the peace I give is a gift the world cannot give. So don’t be troubled or afraid.

Romans 10:9

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

The core meaning of Christianity is different to all religions my dear. All religions assert something different to christianity.

Christian core.
Man is born under sin. Man needs to be reconciled to God. God sent His only Son to atone for our sins so we may have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit.

In order to know if im correct or right one must follow the formula. If those other religions are more convincing than Christianity why are you an atheist my dear?

Why does your belief system revolve around a disbelief in the Christian God?

Why do you discuss the non existance of a God who does not exist?

I have to say my belief system revolves around the understanding that reality is testable and provides reliable and repeatable information about itself. To that end, All God claims (Christianity or otherwise) are on equal standing and are therefore subject to the same tests that anything else might be tested. Being that Gods are an extraordinary claim, the evidence in support of it also ought to be extraordinary.

To the extent that my "belief system revolves around a disbelief in the Christian God", it's because of the negative effect these believers have on their particular communities.

I "discuss the non existence of a God who does not exist" with its believers because I'm concerned that these people get into positions of influence, or even power, and then make decisions that affect the people around them. The same presupposition in their religions and lack of critical thinking has led to a number of demonstrably false and dangerous actions on behalf of believers. the same lack of critical thinking in their religion causes hardship and even death when it's applied to matters of science over the science itself. Anti-vaxxers for example. Faith healing is another one, Homeopathy, legislating against certain forms of scientific research, such as stem cell research and minority groups being legally discriminated against because of sexual orientation or belief in other gods/no gods, etc. This is a long an detailed list too big for this forum, but it has been noted on many occasions by many people.

Lastly, to quote bible verses at me is even less effective as quoting famous movie quotes. Why should I accept anything from the bible as meaning something? Remember, I still don't have any reason to accept any of it as true yet.

Fair enough my friend . You are honest. If you have a spec of doubt you will never know God or get the proof. God works on His terms, His way or the highway.

The scientific method will not show you God - not a thing ij the universe. The Christian formula will.

My friend you will always have uncertainity in yoir life (like you said can not be 100% certain of anything). You will have to rely on the observations and thoughts of other men as your authority, instead of experiencing it for your self.

Im curious. As an atheist do you go to bhuddist, islam and hindu forums?

I do. My being here on this forum just seems significant to you because you have a limited view of my online life and the only thing you see is my interactions here on this forum. It's the same with people of faith seeing the world go about them in the context of their faith. This is why it's possible for you to be 100% certain in Your God, while a Hindu is 100% certain in their God, while a muslim is 100% certain in their God, so on. You all see the world in light of your own religious view and as such, you all see it supporting your respective views in contempt of all other views.

If i got the evidence from one religion, why do i need to seek it from another religion?

Because your views are very likely supported by a predisposition to your religion and confirmation bias, just like every one else of other religions.

My dear, this is a false arguement. You do not know me or what i have done in my life. I would advise we leave our opinions of each other out if this discussion.

Brother, your last remark seems to attack my character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine my argument.

Could we please keep this civil, fun and polite. There is no need to for this type of behaviour my friend.

Looking forward to your polite reply. Cheers

I think you're mistaken, I meant no malice whatsoever. I was making the claim that you are so predisposed to your religion that it would be next to impossible to subject your faith to the "outsider test" of religions. That's to say, be able to scrutinise your own belief as if you were a non-believer or believer of another religion examining these beliefs for the first time.

For example, take this quote from the Qur'An:

O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide people who are unjust. (Quran 5:51)​

Give your commentary on this, perhaps let me know how you feel about this as an outsider to Islam. Now the explanation for this "confrontational" verse is explained by and islamic apologist at Can Muslims be friends with Jews and Christians? - IslamiCity , see for yourself the reasons why this isn't confrontational, and in fact is honourable towards Christians and Jews.

Then take this verse from the Bible for comparison:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)​

Can you do the outsider test on this verse and come to a similar finding to the one from the Qur'An above? As an outsider, I see them as comparable. My question for you, do you find them to be comparable as I do? If so, why aren't you a Muslim? If not, how are they different? There's a swathe of spin-off questions too that I could ask, namely one might be; do you hate your family and yourself too?

 

[BradB]

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

All you need do is point out that all all evolution has to support it are arguments based in similarities between the different forms. But this can just as easily be explained by having a common creator as it can a common ancestor. As for dinosaurs, they are found in scripture as creatures God also created so there's nothing to explain. They are extinct as is 95% of all life that once lived on earth.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But you don't trust God's own words. The ones he spoke in Exodus.

Wrong, atheists don't think that the bible contains any divine words. Not trusting the words of a deity, and not trusting words other people have attributed to a deity are not the same thing. You wouldn't view any statements made by, say, Vishnu in the Hindu Vedas as the literal words of that god, right? So it would be inaccurate to say "you don't trust the word of Vishnu".