What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[Inan3]

That would be abiogenesis, not evolution. Darwin named his book, "On the Origin of Species," not, "On the Origin of Life."

How convenient, but still no answer on where that species or the first "whatever" came from and if evolutions going to be evolution it had to come from somewhere! I mean that's what it's all about trying to prove that we evolved rather than being created by God.

QUOTE=Split Rock;37961321]Frankly I don't care what Creationists believe, as long as they don't pretend it is science. If they dishonestly call their faith science, then I will correct them. If they try to force it on the public as science , I will speak out against them. [/QUOTE]

I don't know about anyone else, but I have never called my faith science. I do believe that there is some science in the scriptures and that science does not deny the existence of God nor God the existence of science .... after all He created it.

QUOTE=Split Rock;37961321]How can it take more faith to accept evolution which is based on physical evidence, than to believe in a God for which there is no physical evidence? It amazes me how people who consider themselves to be the "True Faithful" seem to have no idea what Faith actually is. Faith means you accept something as true without any physical evidence. Evolution, on the other hand, is based on nothing but physical evidence. [/QUOTE]

That statement is not true. Evolution is NOT based on nothing but physical evidence. Science is based on physical evidence but evolution is based on theory or belief. I wish it were true that evolution was only based on the physical evidence but it is much more than that it is a dogma. It involves the element of discrediting the scriptures as a credible account of creation. It is obvious and apparent with every arguement that I have ever encountered with those that believe in it. It is more than science it is religion.


QUOTE=Split Rock;37961321]Science is not about "proof." Proof is for alcohol, and mathematics.[/QUOTE]

Oh, here we go, don't worry I have heard this cop out over and over again. Even though I know it is true, it still gives you the opportunity to say nothing.

QUOTE=Split Rock;37961321]How can you claim evolution is all based on faith and then claim it is full of "might bes?" Faith is based on Dogma, and Dogma is based on certainty. Sound familiar? It should... Dogma is the basis of Creationism, and that is why it is a religion. Science is based on uncertainties, and is therefore not a religion. [/QUOTE]

All dogma is is a principle taught. You have your own dogma.


QUOTE=Split Rock;37961321]Is that why you posted here? To make people angry? [/QUOTE]

Absolutely not, I was just answering the question that was asked. I think that is a weakness of evolution.

QUOTE=Split Rock;37961321]I am willing to bet you know very little of what modern biological evolution is based on. If I am wrong, tell me the three basic mechanisms of evolution.[/QUOTE]

There are three basic mechanisms of evolutionary change: natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.

Don't worry though, you wouldn't lose your bet because I will admit that I know very little about modern biological evolution. My point is that I don't need to know. There is enough information out there to learn about it to be able to make an informed decision about which side you would stand on. I am not against the science. I am against evolutionists trying to say that because of some of the scientific information they have discovered that this proves there is no God. That creation did not happen as the Bible says it did.

I will use your quote above "If they dishonestly try to perpetrate that, then I will correct them. If they try to force it on the public as truth , I will speak out against them."

Evolution has not been disproved or proved, but any truth of species evolving will only be with in the confines of the creation of God. It was His design and any evidence of evolution of any species will include this truth. Maybe not in the heart of an unbeliever who wants to discredit God for that is their free choice but nontheless it is the truth. AND YOU CANNOT and NEVER WILL DISPROVE THAT!

 

[MoonLancer]

nan3, please explain to me how evolution is different from other science?

after you answer that

please state for me what evolution is and what a theory is

evolution didn't set out to prove your bible wrong, the truth just kindo happened that way.

did science need to prove the inner workings of gravity to prove it as a theory? we know the inner workings of evolution. Science knows more about evolution then gravity. pretty scary huh?

 

[gamespotter10]

The current battlecry of creationist/ID institutes like AiG, the Discovery Institute, and ICR is that science classes should discuss the weaknesses of the theory of evolution. So what are those weaknesses?

Im not sure if there are any major weaknesses, other than that it cant really explain where the first life came from.

 

[ENominiPatri]

Im not sure if there are any major weaknesses, other than that it cant really explain where the first life came from.

So if I am unable to tell you without research where the first jar of peanut butter came from, suddenly it doesn't exist? Ignorance is not an argument against anything, sorry bud.

 

[Baggins]

Baggins,

If your so smart why can't you ever offer anything but insults. You are so full of yourself you don't see how sad you look.

I'm only sarcastic ( rather than insulting ) about those who are spouting off about things they have no real understanding of because they have a theological problem with them, i.e. people like yourself.

You obviously have little idea what the theory of evolution actually states, in your post above you confuse it with abiogenesis, and that isn't very clever at all There's a little insult for you.

So here I offer something that isn't an insult, are you ready?

Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution. A god may have created the first life on earth and the Theory of Evolution would not be altered.

You'd appear less pathetic if you understood what you don't like, it isn't as if someone doesn't post the difference between abiogensis and evolution on here at least once a day, this is the second time I have done it in the last 24 hrs. The fact that you still cannot grasp that says something about your intellectual attainments, but I will leave it to others to make that deduction.

 

[Baggins]

The thing that is pitiful is that you know he's not saying that and yet you twist it to present it that way! Now that IS pitiful!

Why does it not suprise me that you cannot understand the "no true scotsman fallacy" as well.

I actually think FoeHammer does understand it but choose to obfuscate the matter because it undermines his "argument", with you I really don't know.

Are you going to get back on topic and try to think of some valid weaknesses with evolution or do you accept that as far as you are concerened it is flawless?

 

[Baggins]

The weakness of evolution is that no one in its ranks has ever been able to answer the question, "where did the first "whatever" come from, which began to evolve into "whatever"?

They would prefer to invoke their scientific standing and demean anothers lack of it. This is the psychological approach that they use to try to dissuade people from seeing or believing anything else but what they believe, and quite frankly, it is a belief because it really takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in the intelligent God of creation.

Don't be fooled by their bullying its all smoking guns. You won't hear them prove anything. The have a lot of "might bes" that they hang onto and of course they have some true things they look at then say, see that proves it, and it doesn't really prove a thing. (Boy, are they are going to be angry I said that) So they will scream and insult and throw out their scientific chests but they cannot connect the dots and actually produce a finished picture. It's all a piece of this and a piece of that and a big story in between that someone has made up to try to make it look like that's the way it happened. They are creative though, aren't they?

Amused rather than angry I'd say.

It is hillarious watching people makes comprehensive fools of themselves by coming on a scientific discussion board with a level of knowledge about science which should shame a teenager.

It is like you actually belive your ignorance should be taken seriously, or that you don't even know how ignorant you are.

I'd suggest a little remidial education on the scientific method, it would make you a much more effective debater on a science board, at the moment you are only a comedic interlude. I say that in all seriousness, this board needs a little clued up opposition otherwise it gets boring.

 

[FoeHammer]

.....
So what are those weaknesses?

It's adherents.

FoeHammer.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

It's adherents.

FoeHammer.

I am rather surprised at such a statement (and poor English) from an Englishman.

 

[Tomk80]

How convenient, but still no answer on where that species or the first "whatever" came from and if evolutions going to be evolution it had to come from somewhere! I mean that's what it's all about trying to prove that we evolved rather than being created by God.

It has little to do with convenience, and all with what the theory states. The theory of evolution describes how species diversify. It describes the origin of species, not the origin of life. The origin of species is a biological question, the origin of life a chemical one. Different subjects, different theories.

As an analogy, we don't have to know where chemicals come from to explain how chemical reactions work either. We know that chemical reactions occur because atoms are rearranged. We don't need to know where atoms come from to know that chemical reactions occur because of the rearrangement of them.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have never called my faith science. I do believe that there is some science in the scriptures and that science does not deny the existence of God nor God the existence of science .... after all He created it.

Fair enough, but you are probably a minority amongst young earth creationists.

That statement is not true. Evolution is NOT based on nothing but physical evidence. Science is based on physical evidence but evolution is based on theory or belief. I wish it were true that evolution was only based on the physical evidence but it is much more than that it is a dogma. It involves the element of discrediting the scriptures as a credible account of creation. It is obvious and apparent with every arguement that I have ever encountered with those that believe in it. It is more than science it is religion.

Which belief is that specifically. Be precise, because I call shenanigans. Evolution has never been specifically used to discredit scriptures, although creationists like the lying weasels from Ansers in Genesis would definitely want you to believe that. It is purely science and all of it's arguments can be tracked back to observations.

Oh, here we go, don't worry I have heard this cop out over and over again. Even though I know it is true, it still gives you the opportunity to say nothing.

Why then your statements? The whole point of science is that we recognize that every model is fallable. That is why it can be used continuously to improve itself. Claiming anything else is nothing but arrogance and this you see in how scientists speak. In probablies, maybes, "the evidence indicates this"-s. Many fundamentalists do not speak in those terms. If you read the above again, you can easily deduce what I think about that.

All dogma is is a principle taught. You have your own dogma.

Yes. For example, one of my dogma's is that reality is really real. But when concerning scientific topics like evolution, apart from dogma's like those I cannot come up with any I have. But I'm sure you can supply them.

Absolutely not, I was just answering the question that was asked. I think that is a weakness of evolution.

That is cannot answer a question which it is not supposed to answer? Rather silly, is it not?

There are three basic mechanisms of evolutionary change: natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.

Don't worry though, you wouldn't lose your bet because I will admit that I know very little about modern biological evolution. My point is that I don't need to know. There is enough information out there to learn about it to be able to make an informed decision about which side you would stand on. I am not against the science. I am against evolutionists trying to say that because of some of the scientific information they have discovered that this proves there is no God. That creation did not happen as the Bible says it did.

Who has said that on this thread?

I will use your quote above "If they dishonestly try to perpetrate that, then I will correct them. If they try to force it on the public as truth , I will speak out against them."

Evolution has not been disproved or proved, but any truth of species evolving will only be with in the confines of the creation of God. It was His design and any evidence of evolution of any species will include this truth. Maybe not in the heart of an unbeliever who wants to discredit God for that is their free choice but nontheless it is the truth. AND YOU CANNOT and NEVER WILL DISPROVE THAT!

And again, what does this have to do with the question asked? Where has Baggins stated that the theory of evolution shows there is no god? Where has anyone else on this thread?

The existence of God has been questioned on this thread, but based on the absence for evidence for God's existence, not based on evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

How convenient, but still no answer on where that species or the first "whatever" came from and if evolutions going to be evolution it had to come from somewhere! I mean that's what it's all about trying to prove that we evolved rather than being created by God.

It is not so much tying to prove we evolved rather than were created by your God. Evolution is about explaining the diversity and distribution of life on earth utilizing natural mechanisms.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have never called my faith science. I do believe that there is some science in the scriptures and that science does not deny the existence of God nor God the existence of science .... after all He created it.

Good for you. However, the vast majority of Professional Creationists (like those at AIG and ICR) claim that their religion is supported by science. Hence the term, "Creation Science." They are (unfortunately) the major source of information on creationism and evolution for most creationists. They are also liars and charlatans.

That statement is not true. Evolution is NOT based on nothing but physical evidence. Science is based on physical evidence but evolution is based on theory or belief. I wish it were true that evolution was only based on the physical evidence but it is much more than that it is a dogma. It involves the element of discrediting the scriptures as a credible account of creation. It is obvious and apparent with every arguement that I have ever encountered with those that believe in it. It is more than science it is religion.

No. It has nothing to do with "discrediting the scriptures." As I mentioned above, it is about explaining the diversity and distribution of life on earth. Period.

Evolution has physical evidence behind it, not dogma. This evidence includes:
1. Comparative morphology
2. Biochemistry
3. Genetics
4. Embryology and development
5. Paleontology
6. Biogeography

It also makes no sense to say that science is based on physical evidence but not theory. Scientific theory is the most important aspect of scientific thought.

Oh, here we go, don't worry I have heard this cop out over and over again. Even though I know it is true, it still gives you the opportunity to say nothing.

If it is true, how can it be a cop out? For the sake of argument, would it be OK for you if I give God the responsibility for creating life?

All dogma is is a principle taught. You have your own dogma.

No. Dogma is a principle that cannot be questioned or tested. Evolution is questioned and tested all the time by scientists. Do a PubMed search for "evolution" and see how many hits you get. All these papers deal with questioning and testing various aspects of evolutionary theory.

There are three basic mechanisms of evolutionary change: natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.

Very good!

Don't worry though, you wouldn't lose your bet because I will admit that I know very little about modern biological evolution. My point is that I don't need to know. There is enough information out there to learn about it to be able to make an informed decision about which side you would stand on. I am not against the science. I am against evolutionists trying to say that because of some of the scientific information they have discovered that this proves there is no God. That creation did not happen as the Bible says it did.

You are conflating evolution with atheism. The theory of evolution says nothing about God. Though some scientists are atheists, many are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. Science itself does not try to claim anything about God.

 

[FoeHammer]

I am rather surprised at such a statement.....

Why the surprise?

..... (and poor English) from an Englishman.

Carelessness..... I do apologise.

FoeHammer.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's adherents.

FoeHammer.

Does this include the thousands of christian biologists who accept the theory? Or how about the 10,000+ christian clergy who also see no conflict between evolution and christianity (see Clergy Letter Project)?

I guess you can find no scientific weakness in the theory?

 

[FishFace]

There is no need for a true Christian to make sure our definition conforms to the dictionary definition. Our definition will come from the Word of God, which says a Christian is a follower of Christ, a disciple of Christ. As He is so are we in this world.

Jesus said,

Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

and again
Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;
Joh 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

A Christian is a follower of Christ. Does that mean that, to be a Christian, one has to do exactly everything that Christ said to do, and furthermore, to carry it out perfectly? If so, then no, witch-burners were not Christians. But neither is anybody ever.

In a small nutshell, history has taught us is that when Constantine was converted he made it a law that everyone become a christian and so rather than come under prosecution for not being a christian and to have a position or voice in political matters, many unbelievers claimed themselves to be chrisitans, and thus, many heresies and ungodly practices were brought into the church. Real Christians along with "sinners" were put to death under the guise and name of Christianity. Some of that remains in the church today. Contrary to the reasons that unbelievers may think that is why there have been different breakaways from various mainstream groups.

In case you hadn't noticed, the witch burnings didn't place until the Middle Ages, long after Constantine was bringing the Roman Empire to its knees.

Jesus never commanded his followers to follow the OT he came to bring a new testament.

[bible]Matt 5:18[/bible]

Seems clear enough.

The old law was a schoolmaster to bring people to Christ. It was to show that no one could keep the old law because we are weak in our flesh. It pointed to Christ the Saviour...the One Who would take our judgement for us. The Law said if you sin you must die...sin was passed on to all men through Adam so there is no way we could NOT sin. What God did was to send His Son Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh and yet without sin to take the punishment for sin for everyone. He satisfied the old law that was against us by dying for us. His resurrection bought a new life for us. One that was to be lived in the spirit not the flesh. So Christ would never command us to follow the OT. There are many things in the OT that we can learn from but we can never please God by following the OT. It is the NT that gives us life.

This is all irrelevant. I know Christian dogma already, thank you.

I suspect that you really would not know if someone was misinterpreting the scriptures or not so I'm not going there with you.

I suspect your condescension prevents you from being a TrueChristian.

Jesus died for witches He was not about killing them. He said,

OT: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
NT: Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets

[bible]Matt 5:17[/bible]

Once again, you twist what he said to have it say what you want it to say.

It's true that we believe all men are sinners, don't you? Who do you know that has no sin? We were all born into sin because of Adam but as I said above, God has remedied that. He sent Jesus to take care of the sin problem. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want to avail themselves of this gift.

Perhaps because there's no good evidence that it exists.

It's for anyone and they don't have "achieve" it to have it. It has no prejudice or bias it is free to all. Why they would WANT to discredit it. I do understand that everyone has the choice, though.

Why should I believe that it's unconditional, when a load of your fellow Christians (or are they not TrueChristians either?) say you have to jump through hoops to get it?

What I believe Foe-Hammer was trying to say is that just because a person says they are a christian does not mean they are a christian anymore than if I say I am a Scotsman will make me a Scotsman.

Knowledge of the times leads us to believe that almost everyone was Christian. Why would we believe that the witch-burners weren't, especially since they were following biblical commands.

The inference here is that even though the devils "believe" there is a God, does not mean they are christians. One can believe in God and not know God, just as one can believe in Abraham Lincoln but not know him. God's criteria for one to become a christian is to believe in His Son and to believe that His Son came for you personally. To believe in the Bible sense is to be fully persuaded, enough so that you would commit your life to Him. A person cannot be good enough to come. They just accept that what Jesus did was for them. That is good enough for the justice of God and God accepts us on this basis, and only on this basis. We have no good works to offer before or after we come to Christ.

Why would we believe that medieval Christians didn't believe like this?

 

[Loudmouth]

How convenient, but still no answer on where that species or the first "whatever" came from and if evolutions going to be evolution it had to come from somewhere! I mean that's what it's all about trying to prove that we evolved rather than being created by God.

Do you accept the idea that infections are caused by germs? This is the Germ Theory of Disease. Guess what? The Germ Theory of Disease does not attempt to describe where the first germs came from. Do we then scrap the idea that germs cause disease because we can not determine where the first germs came from? Sounds kind of silly to me, but that is exactly what you are arguing.

Also, Darwin himself proposed that evolution started from one or a few forms into which life was breathed by their Creator. This is the only time that Darwin addresses where life came from in Origin of Species. Evolution works just fine no matter where that first life came from.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have never called my faith science. I do believe that there is some science in the scriptures and that science does not deny the existence of God nor God the existence of science .... after all He created it.

Even as an atheist I agree that science does not falsify the existence of any deity, including yours. That is not the purpose of science. However, scientific theories can and do falsify the idea that some people' deities did certain things in the natural world.

That statement is not true. Evolution is NOT based on nothing but physical evidence. Science is based on physical evidence but evolution is based on theory or belief.

Theory is as good as it gets in science. There is no level above theory.

And could you please list for me the belieifs that evolution is based upon?

I wish it were true that evolution was only based on the physical evidence but it is much more than that it is a dogma. It involves the element of discrediting the scriptures as a credible account of creation.

The evidence discredits Genesis as a literal historical account. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with it. Even if the theory of evolution were disproved today Genesis would still be wrong if it is interpretted as a literal account. The scientific fields of geology, physics, and astronomy falsify a literal Genesis to such a degree that evolution is just icing on the cake.

It is obvious and apparent with every arguement that I have ever encountered with those that believe in it. It is more than science it is religion.

Prove it.

Don't worry though, you wouldn't lose your bet because I will admit that I know very little about modern biological evolution. My point is that I don't need to know. There is enough information out there to learn about it to be able to make an informed decision about which side you would stand on.

So you do not accept evolution because you are ignorant of it? Wow!

There is enough evidence out there, and there is a little thing called university where you can learn about it.

I am against evolutionists trying to say that because of some of the scientific information they have discovered that this proves there is no God. That creation did not happen as the Bible says it did.

These two concepts are not one in the same. There are literally hundreds of thousands of christian biologists who accept evolution as a well supported theory.

Evolution has not been disproved or proved,

Theories are never proven.

but any truth of species evolving will only be with in the confines of the creation of God.

What are those confines? What God? I need evidence for both.

It was His design and any evidence of evolution of any species will include this truth. Maybe not in the heart of an unbeliever who wants to discredit God for that is their free choice but nontheless it is the truth. AND YOU CANNOT and NEVER WILL DISPROVE THAT![/COLOR]

There are mountains of evidence that we share a common ancestor with other apes. It has been disproven.

 

[FishFace]

How convenient, but still no answer on where that species or the first "whatever" came from and if evolutions going to be evolution it had to come from somewhere! I mean that's what it's all about trying to prove that we evolved rather than being created by God.

Uh, no. "What it's all about" is trying to discover what actually happened. Evolution scientists don't care whether God or random chemical interactions created the first living thing. Whatever you want to believe about where the first living thing came from, there is still a clear evolutionary path from humans to microorganisms.

Abiogenesis hypotheses are rapidly gaining credibility and evidence, but they are also irrelevant. We evolved - end of story.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have never called my faith science. I do believe that there is some science in the scriptures and that science does not deny the existence of God nor God the existence of science .... after all He created it.

Scientific method, however, leads one to lack a belief in God.

That statement is not true. Evolution is NOT based on nothing but physical evidence. Science is based on physical evidence but evolution is based on theory or belief.

What is the Germ theory of disease based on?
What about the theory of General Relativity?
What about atomic theory?

I wish it were true that evolution was only based on the physical evidence but it is much more than that it is a dogma.

There's nothing dogmatic about human chromosome two, which shows incontrovertibly that we came from apes.

It involves the element of discrediting the scriptures as a credible account of creation.

Science had accomplished that WAY before evolution was discovered.

It is obvious and apparent with every arguement that I have ever encountered with those that believe in it. It is more than science it is religion.

You might want to invest in a dictionary. After you buy a dictionary, you might want to buy a high school biology textbook.

Oh, here we go, don't worry I have heard this cop out over and over again. Even though I know it is true, it still gives you the opportunity to say nothing

If you knew it to be true, why did you ask for proof? Evidence is what it's all about, and we've got plenty.

All dogma is is a principle taught. You have your own dogma.

No, dogma is held, well, dogmatically. Nothing could possibly convince you otherwise of dogma. If we didn't find things like patterns in pseudogenes, in ERV insertions and in the fossil record, evolution would have been dropped decades ago. It is not dogmatic.

There are three basic mechanisms of evolutionary change: natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.

Don't worry though, you wouldn't lose your bet because I will admit that I know very little about modern biological evolution. My point is that I don't need to know. There is enough information out there to learn about it to be able to make an informed decision about which side you would stand on. I am not against the science. I am against evolutionists trying to say that because of some of the scientific information they have discovered that this proves there is no God. That creation did not happen as the Bible says it did.

You've just said two different things. Do you think the Deists are worried that Genesis is false? Of course not - they still believe in God. Evolution doesn't disprove God in any way at all. On the other hand, biology, biochemistry, genetics, geology, physics and probably more all disprove a literal genesis. Time to get over it.

Evolution has not been disproved or proved

NOR HAS ANY THEORY OF GRAVITY. NOR HAS ATOMIC THEORY.

Proof is not necessary for science to be valid.

but any truth of species evolving will only be with in the confines of the creation of God.

Do you mean that organisms can evolve, but only so far? If you do, I want evidence.

It was His design and any evidence of evolution of any species will include this truth. Maybe not in the heart of an unbeliever who wants to discredit God for that is their free choice but nontheless it is the truth. AND YOU CANNOT and NEVER WILL DISPROVE THAT!

There is no evidence anywhere of any "limit" on evolution.

 

[Gracchus]

Don't worry though, you wouldn't lose your bet because I will admit that I know very little about modern biological evolution. My point is that I don't need to know. There is enough information out there to learn about it to be able to make an informed decision about which side you would stand on. I am not against the science.

“Dunning-Kruger effect
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon wherein people who have little knowledge think that they know more than others who have much more knowledge.

The phenomenon was demonstrated in a series of experiments performed by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, then both of Cornell University. Their results were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December 1999.[1]

Kruger and Dunning noted a number of previous studies which tend to suggest that in skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (as Charles Darwin put it). They hypothesized that with a typical skill which humans may possess in greater or lesser degree,

1. incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill,
2. incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others,
3. incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy,
4. if they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

The shoes seem to fit. Walk around in them for a while, and see how your intellectual bunions and hammer toes improve.

I am against evolutionists trying to say that because of some of the scientific information they have discovered that this proves there is no God.

Since God, in your conception, is invisible, inaudible, intangible, odorless, and tasteless, he is unfalsifiable. Under those conditions, so are Zeus, Odin, Thoth, and Mater Magna.

It is not the scientific evidence that proves that your god does not exist, nor am I aware that anyone on this forum has argued such. Even Dawkins only argues that it is the lack of evidence that demonstrates there is no rational motive to think he does exist.

That creation did not happen as the Bible says it did.

The evidence clearly indicates that the Earth was not created in six days nor in the order listed in your holy book. It is however, explainable using only recognized natural processes.

 

[FoeHammer]

Does this include the thousands of christian biologists who accept the theory? Or how about the 10,000+ christian clergy who also see no conflict between evolution and christianity .....

Yes.

FoeHammer.

 

[Inan3]

Firstly, though I would love to, I cannot possibly answer the entirety of every post. Nor can I entirely cover in my answers the entire subject. It is not because I do not want to but because of time constraints. I will do my best.. I do want to thank those who constrain themselves from attacking and insults. I know it is not always easy but I think it makes for better conversation. I will do the same.

A Christian is a follower of Christ. Does that mean that, to be a Christian, one has to do exactly everything that Christ said to do, and furthermore, to carry it out perfectly? If so, then no, witch-burners were not Christians. But neither is anybody ever.

No, once again, the understanding that one is a Christian based on his works is erroneous. Many people who call themselves Christians believe that but it is not the truth. I know that most people, especially scientists, depend entirely upon the physical realm but in order to get the full and correct understanding of the scriptures one HAS to understand that there is more. There is a spiritual realm that is even more real than the physical. I know that that is going to generate a lot of disagreement but if one is to really understand God and His Word one needs to understand spiritual things. A natural knowledge of the scriptures alone is what causes error and confusion. The scripture itself says,

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

[bible]Matt 5:18[/bible]
Seems clear enough.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The operative word here is fulfilled. It may be easier to understand when you understand its meaning. It means to "satisfy", to "diffuse", to "complete". What Jesus was referring to was that it wasn't His objective to tear down the law in words or put down what the prophets had said, His objective was to satisfy the law. He agreed with what the law said, if you sin you must die. This was the only legal justification. Sin required death. The wages of sin is death. Since sin had entered into mankind, all men were doomed to this death. Throughout the OT sin required a sacrifice. Over and over, year after year, sacrifices were offered for sin. Through sacrifice men were forgiven and God was still involved in their lives, but the communion of God and man was from a distance. The OT sacrifices were only a type or shadow of the sacrifice to come. God promised from the first onslaught of sin to send a redeemer. One who would destroy the effect of sin on man. Jesus came to become the sacrificial "Lamb" of God. The Lamb who would take away the sins of the world once and for all. On the cross Jesus became that sacrifice and in so doing, He "satisfied", "diffused", "completed", "fulfilled" the law, taking it out of the way. In His resurrection He became the Second Adam the beginning of a completely new race of man, a new creation.

I suspect your condescension prevents you from being a TrueChristian.

I meant no condescention, but I apologize if it seemed that way to you. I tried to answer that as sensitively as I could but I apparently missed it.

OT: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
NT: Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets

[bible]Matt 5:17[/bible]

Refer to my answer above

Perhaps because there's no good evidence that it exists.

It depends on which evidence you are looking at and how you interpret it.

Why should I believe that it's unconditional, when a load of your fellow Christians (or are they not TrueChristians either?) say you have to jump through hoops to get it?

I am going to say here, at the risk of inciting the Catholic community, but I think it needs to be said if you are to understand, what my definition of a Christian is. I do not believe that most Catholics are Christians. I do believe there are some Christians in the Catholic church but just being a Catholic does not make you a Christian. I was brought up a Catholic, attended Catholic schools, learned Catholic dogma, made all the required sacraments, BUT I was not a Christian. In fact I left the Catholic church in my late teens because I could not be a hypocrite any longer. It was not until I was 22 that I became a Christian, not in a church but in a social workers office. It was a day that I will remember my whole life. My life changed that day. I changed that day. I became a new creature, a new person, a new man. I had no emotional breakdown or traumatic event happen to me I just made a decision that I believed that Jesus died for me and I was changed. That's all the evidence I need. I believe God is real and approachable not on my merit but on the merit and gift of Jesus Christ. It's a free offer and I took it. Since then, I have found no reason to turn back to the way I used to live. I don't live in fear, I live in joy. That's evidence, that's truth.

Knowledge of the times leads us to believe that almost everyone was Christian. Why would we believe that the witch-burners weren't, especially since they were following biblical commands.

History does not always cover every aspect of the times. Just as news does not today. From what I have read there were both Catholics and Protestants involved in this crime. And I wouldn't doubt there were atheists and religious people from every group. This was not only a Christian issue but a culture issue. People were afraid of anyone that was different. It wasn't only real witches that were killed it was anyone that was different that was tagged a witch. I'm sure that there were some, what I call true Christians, that were deemed witches and killed, also.

Why would we believe that medieval Christians didn't believe like this?

While it is true that because the scriptures were not readily available and because of that, this teaching was not known to most of christiandom, I am sure that there were individuals true Christian or otherwise that still were against this masacre of so called "witches."

 

[Tomk80]

Firstly, though I would love to, I cannot possibly answer the entirety of every post. Nor can I entirely cover in my answers the entire subject. It is not because I do not want to but because of time constraints. I will do my best.. I do want to thank those who constrain themselves from attacking and insults. I know it is not always easy but I think it makes for better conversation. I will do the same.

No sweat. I know how it can be to have a whole lot of people arguing against you.