Science Says NO to Evolution Theory!

[AV1611VET]

In every single part of my life, the results of the scientific method are at work.

You have a hardcopy of your parent's DNA, do you?

 

[Jan Volkes]

If that's true then all religions are internally and externally cohesive with reality because they are all saying virtually the same thing, every one of them are about seemingly non-existent supernatural beings affecting our lives and the world we live in.

That statement just shows your ignorance of religions in the world, but that just confirms what I already knew.

Do religions not claim deities exist?
It's easier for to you answer like that than confront the question, I completely understand.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ahahahahaha

The disciples followed Christ, He was killed. He rose from the dead. Now if that was false, why would they be willing to die for it? They followed Christ, He was killed, he didn't rise from the dead...it was a lie and they would know that...why would they die for it? Show me anyone ever that has died knowing that what they were claiming was a lie.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do religions not claim deities exist?
It's easier for to you answer like that than confront the question, I completely understand.

Like I said...

 

[Astrophile]

No, provide examples where people knew the claims they were dying for were false.

Perkin Warbeck?

 

[crjmurray]

The disciples followed Christ, He was killed. He rose from the dead. Now if that was false, why would they be willing to die for it? They followed Christ, He was killed, he didn't rise from the dead...it was a lie and they would know that...why would they die for it? Show me anyone ever that has died knowing that what they were claiming was a lie.

Oh holy crap ahahahahaha..... Oh god

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh holy crap ahahahahaha..... Oh god

What a dignified and rational response...not.

 

[AV1611VET]

What a dignified and rational response...not.

Remember, sis, most of these guys go with Mark Twain's definition of faith:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

So according to Mark Twain, there is no such thing as true martyrs.

 

[crjmurray]

What a dignified and rational response...not.

Hey, I am as God made me. You don't like it, take it up with him.

 

[Astrophile]

Provide some examples please.

People will die if they believe something is true, few if any will die if they know something is a lie.

You say about the early Christians being killed for their beliefs, but, according to the Bible the only one of Jesus's immediate followers who was killed for his faith was James the brother of John, who was killed by Herod (Acts 12:2). (This is not confirmed by Josephus, who tells us a great deal about the life of 'Herod' (King Agrippa I).)

Ananias and his wife Sapphira were struck dead for their belief that they could keep some of the money from the sale of their property, not because of their belief in the Resurrection (Acts 5:1-10), and Judas Iscariot killed himself (Matthew 27:5, Acts 1:18) before Jesus rose from the dead, so their deaths don't count as evidence that the story of the Resurrection is true. Stephen was lynched (Acts 7:58), so he didn't have any chance to recant. Anyway, Stephen wasn't one of the first followers of Jesus so presumably he believed what he had been told; he had no way of knowing whether what he had been told was true.

Apart from these, the Bible doesn't tell us anything about how the first Christians died; it is only the Apocryphal books that give the stories of their martyrdoms.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Remember, sis, most of these guys go with Mark Twain's definition of faith:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

So according to Mark Twain, there is no such thing as true martyrs.

I guess you are right.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey, I am as God made me. You don't like it, take it up with him.

Oh that is too. You are on a roll.

 

[whois]

Remember, sis, most of these guys go with Mark Twain's definition of faith:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

somehow, i don't think this definition reflects truth of the situation.
there is a difference between rational faith, and blind faith.
rational faith is faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, there is reason to suspect it will.
blind faith is the belief or non belief in a god, there is no reason at all for either.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You say about the early Christians being killed for their beliefs, but, according to the Bible the only one of Jesus's immediate followers who was killed for his faith was James the brother of John, who was killed by Herod (Acts 12:2). (This is not confirmed by Josephus, who tells us a great deal about the life of 'Herod' (King Agrippa I).)

Ananias and his wife Sapphira were struck dead for their belief that they could keep some of the money from the sale of their property, not because of their belief in the Resurrection (Acts 5:1-10), and Judas Iscariot killed himself (Matthew 27:5, Acts 1:18) before Jesus rose from the dead, so their deaths don't count as evidence that the story of the Resurrection is true. Stephen was lynched (Acts 7:58), so he didn't have any chance to recant. Anyway, Stephen wasn't one of the first followers of Jesus so presumably he believed what he had been told; he had no way of knowing whether what he had been told was true.

Apart from these, the Bible doesn't tell us anything about how the first Christians died; it is only the Apocryphal books that give the stories of their martyrdoms.

http://magazine.biola.edu/article/13-fall/did-the-apostles-really-die-as-martyrs-for-their-f/

Historian Michael Licona captures the key point in his book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach: “After Jesus’ death, the disciples endured persecution, and a number of them experienced martyrdom. The strength of their conviction indicates that they were not just claiming Jesus had appeared to them after rising from the dead. They really believed it. They willingly endangered themselves by publicly proclaiming the risen Christ.”

While the evidence of martyrdom is far better for some of the apostles than others, the evidence for Peter is particularly strong. The earliest evidence is found in John 21:18–19, which was written about 30 years after Peter’s death. Bart Ehrman, in his book Peter, Paul, & Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend, agrees that Peter is being told he will die as a martyr. Other evidence for Peter’s martyrdom can be found in early church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, Tertullian and more. The early, consistent and unanimous testimony is that Peter died as a martyr.

 

[Oncedeceived]

somehow, i don't think this definition reflects truth of the situation.
there is a difference between rational faith, and blind faith.
rational faith is faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, there is reason to suspect it will.
blind faith is the belief or non belief in a god, there is no reason at all for either.

I don't believe that blind faith is a part of Christianity other than that to trust God in directing your life. Evidence is abundant for His existence and we don't have to accept that due to that with anything close to blind faith.

 

[whois]

I don't believe that blind faith is a part of Christianity other than that to trust God in directing your life.

we can't even define what a god is.
it certainly cannot be some kind omnipotent, holy, and righteous entity.
what kind of righteous being would allows the suffering of his creations?
what kind of god would allow people like stephen hawking to be born and call it justice?
i am not asking you to defend your faith, i'm just pointing out some of the basic facts here.
OTOH, i have been of the receiving end of what some would call miracles.
i've been is situations that by all rights i should have been dead.

Evidence is abundant for His existence and we don't have to accept that due to that with anything close to blind faith.

i just don't know.
what would be the purpose of creating all this stuff. life and the universe?
to make a bet with the devil?
to see which side humanity will go to?
sounds to me like this entity isn't as "all knowing" as we think.
what is he doing?
experimenting with us like rats in a maze?
he gives us feelings, then watches silently while some experience pain until they pass out.
he watches as young lovers can't deal with their emotions and commit suicide.
he just stands there while people like hawking wonder "will i ever be truly loved".

i submit that if there is truly a god, then the human race is it.
if that is the case, then it's easy to see how the bible can be the work of satan himself, to make you believe there is an outside entity when in fact it comes from humanity itself.

-the ramblings of an old hag.

 

[crjmurray]

we can't even define what a god is.
it certainly cannot be some kind omnipotent, holy, and righteous entity.
what kind of righteous being would allows the suffering of his creations?
what kind of god would allow people like stephen hawking to be born and call it justice?
i am not asking you to defend your faith, i'm just pointing out some of the basic facts here.
OTOH, i have been of the receiving end of what some would call miracles.
i've been is situations that by all rights i should have been dead.

i just don't know.
what would be the purpose of creating all this stuff. life and the universe?
to make a bet with the devil?
to see which side humanity will go to?
sounds to me like this entity isn't as "all knowing" as we think.
what is he doing?
experimenting with us like rats in a maze?
he gives us feelings, then watches silently while some experience pain until they pass out.
he watches as young lovers can't deal with their emotions and commit suicide.
he just stands there while people like hawking wonder "will i ever be truly loved".

i submit that if there is truly a god, then the human race is it.
if that is the case, then it's easy to see how the bible can be the work of satan himself, to make you believe there is an outside entity when in fact it comes from humanity itself.

-the ramblings of an old hag.

Motorcycle wreck?

 

[Zosimus]

No, it isn't. In every aspect of my life, I use technology that would not be possible without the rigorous application of the scientific method. You obviously use it during your free time quite extensively, and if I may be so bold, do you walk to work, and did your job exist in its current form 500 years ago? In every single part of my life, the results of the scientific method are at work, and I can check and test them to see if they are or not. What do you want from me, exactly? What do you expect me to do, demonstrate all of modern science from the ground up?

It is no secret that I am a GMAT Instructor and work for Chicago GMAT Prep. As for whether my job existed 500 years ago, obviously not. The GMAT test was started in 1953.

Please explain how this proves how wonderful science is. I'm dying to know.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Like I said...

And like I said.

 

[Jan Volkes]

I guess you are right.

Keep telling each other that, Satan is behind all those people who are against God,
Rule one is 'God is always right', if ever God is shown to be wrong please defer to rule one.
It beggars belief what some people are prepared to believe, you could not make it up.