Freeze and Dabo negative religious recruit UT

First off, to create is not to make something from absolutely nothing. It is simply to bring something into existence.

And with regards to the sentence that I bolded.... See what I mean when I say that religion prevents people from asking questions. Why shouldn't we try to gain as much wisdom as possible? The only way to become wise is to not be afraid to ask questions about any and everything.

I'm not trying to be wiser than god (firstly because that is a bit absurd since I don't think god actually exists), but I am trying to be as wise and as knowledgeable as I can possibly be. I'm considering all the options. What's wrong that?

And don't say that I haven't considered Christianity or creationism because I have. I've thought long and hard about this stuff, and still study it quite a bit.

JD, unfortunately, you have blinded yourself so much, that you don't even see the contradiction in your very 1st statement. If creation means to bring something into existence, then you brought it from non-existence...non-existence is nothing, which is the exact definition I gave...make something out of nothing.
 
Eyewitness testimony is the weakest type of scientific evidence. There has been quite a bit of study to show that people will change their story over time, see things that they want to see, etc.

Remember the telephone game that we all played in kindergarten. The one where everyone lines up in a line and the teacher whispers something in to the first kid's ear and the kids pass it down the line in whispers one at a time. What usually always happened? By the end of the line the message was different. I guess that would be earwitness testimony, but nonetheless, eyewitness testimony is no basis to establish truth.
The truth is that Athiesm is a belief. It takes fath to believe in God or science. You just choose to believe science. You can poke holes in either belief if you were so inclined.
 
I'll be honest, I've never understood why so many Christians want to argue against evolution. I believe in God, and I believe in evolution and I don't think there's any contradiction there.

I would say the overwhelming majority of Christians would agree that there are large parts of the Bible that aren't literal, and chief among them is the book of Genesis. Why can't evolution be how man was created? If everyone agrees that the Earth wasn't created in 7 days, what's the difference in saying that "Ok God didn't just plop down people and called it a day", but that he created a place and set parameters and let evolution take its course.

Everyone's fond of talking about how we can't understand God because of the difference between divine and mortal etc, so if that's true how is evolution ruled out as how He decided to create us.
 
Whatever dude. Your definition of belittle and disrespect differs than mine. Following ever changing theories and evidence that seems to contradict itself daily sounds like a far greater reach to me.

As I've said before, these discussions go no where. You all poop on the Bible. People bring science that lends credence to God and you discount it as junk science. You only put stock in publications that support your belief. The difference here is the God believing folk have been nothing but respectful while you and yours have not. People might take you more seriously if weren't so disrespectful of religion. That just my opinion.
Please provide said "scientific credence" to a god please. I am eager with anticipation for such a revelation
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
The truth is that Athiesm is a belief. It takes fath to believe in God or science. You just choose to believe science. You can poke holes in either belief if you were so inclined.
Yes, atheism, the complete LACK of a belief in a god, is somehow a belief. Seems legit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
JD, unfortunately, you have blinded yourself so much, that you don't even see the contradiction in your very 1st statement. If creation means to bring something into existence, then you brought it from non-existence...non-existence is nothing, which is the exact definition I gave...make something out of nothing.
So when I created the chicken salad sandwich I just ate, did I whip it up from absolutely nothing? Magically pull it out of thin air? No. I put together some ingredients. Regardless, us arguing over the definition of creation doesn't really matter. I think we probably more or less agree with each other. I would much rather hear you thoughts on the rest of the things I said in that post.
 
I'll be honest, I've never understood why so many Christians want to argue against evolution. I believe in God, and I believe in evolution and I don't think there's any contradiction there.

I would say the overwhelming majority of Christians would agree that there are large parts of the Bible that aren't literal, and chief among them is the book of Genesis. Why can't evolution be how man was created? If everyone agrees that the Earth wasn't created in 7 days, what's the difference in saying that "Ok God didn't just plop down people and called it a day", but that he created a place and set parameters and let evolution take its course.

Everyone's fond of talking about how we can't understand God because of the difference between divine and mortal etc, so if that's true how is evolution ruled out as how He decided to create us.

Explain what evolved and from where.

Its written...



Genesis 1:27
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.



Genesis 2:7

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
 
Yes, I believe the entire bible written by 40+ men over an extremely long period of time, yet being in complete harmony, is all true. It's true because all of the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God to write the words that are recorded for us. All of the language of the bible is not literal. There's actually a lot of figurative language, for example in the books of Daniel and Revelation. In the places where the language is figurative, you have to study to find out the message being given. Not everything that God gives us is milk and easy to digest. There's a lot of meat that takes time, patience, and study to fully understand. The more we study the more we find that God is telling us. Why? I think He wants us to want to continue learning about Him, Jesus, and His great divine plan for the entirety of our lives.
Ok cool. It seems weird to me that god would make some of the stuff literal and some of the stuff figurative and not tell us which was which. Also doesn't the bible essentially claim that it is the perfect word of god and should be taken literally? I say that because if you had said what you just said in the 14th century, they probably would've put you to death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
With all due respect


Senseless.....having an eye witness sure helps more than guessing what happened.

Whoever seen a fish...with human legs.....with monkey arms.....with hair on its back....speaking spanish? Nobody. It never happened
Yes. Having an eyewitness does help, but as I said, it is the weakest form of scientific evidence. People don't always tell the truth.

And if your last sentence is how you think evolution works.... (sigh) This is all I've got for you.
jiFfM.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
And who created Satan? Who has the ability to destroy Satan? Who is still apparently letting Satan run around tempting and conning people to sin?

God.

If a person does get deceived by Satan, would you say that person is more at fault than god? It's almost as if an older sibling is tricking a younger sibling into doing something naughty, and the parent, who has the ability to stop it, is just standing there watching and letting it happen.

God did not create Satan. God created an angel. A cherubim that was perfect, beautiful, and blameless. However, Lucifer felt that he was an equal to God and tried to overthrow God. He soon learned that he could not win and was expelled from God's presence.

When God created Adam and Eve he placed them in his garden and communed with them daily. He walked and talked with them because they were sinless and blameless. Satan, having been cast out of paradise, was jealous and decided to destroy the relationship that God had with these two people.

God did not create Satan. The pride and lust for power of one of the most powerful angels created Satan.
 
Explain what evolved and from where.

Its written...



Genesis 1:27
So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.



Genesis 2:7

Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

And Genesis also said the earth was created in 7 days, but that's not true
 
To the Christian the truth has been presented as has the choice been given to accept and acknowledge it in our lives. Satan chose not to accept and went his own way along with the fallen angels and all people created in God's image that reject his truth. When any of us go against what is right and good in his sight we are rebelling from authority. We are simply saying God is the ultimate authority. The difference is I accept him as such and confess/repent when I become rebellious or otherwise go against his ways. You do not acknowledge his existence, so that route is not available to you. Satan and crew rejected his authority and work against him by using the weaknesses of his created people. We Christians know that in God's time he will bring all of the evil to an end. Since you don't acknowledge him as Lord, you will not be in his presence. That is your choice to accept those consequences.
Ok you said that you know, well then shouldn't you be able to prove to anyone then?

I actually think that most christians still aren't sure, and here's why. Whenever I go to a funeral or see some tragedy on tv or any other instance where people lose a loved one, everyone is always crying and sad and upset. Which is completely understandable. Yet if you think that your loved one is now in heaven with a god, that they are in a truly better place, then why is everyone so sad? If think your loved one is now in an everlasting paradise with god, then why are you crying?

"If you think death leads to eternal bliss, then why are you wearing a seatbelt? Because your just not sure." - Doug Stanhope
 
I believe your error (and Hitchens') is the assumption that you earn salvation. The Bible is clear that no man can "earn" his place is heaven. It is given to you. All you do is accept it. That seems pretty loving and forgiving to me.

This is what separates Christ from all others. He loves His enemies and died for them. His love is unconditional and eternal life is free. Faith is a receiver. Faith can only receive salvation and not in anyway deserve or pay for it. I think all of us from birth find it hard to believe that God freely loves and freely forgives ANYONE ANYTIME they come to Jesus CHrist. We all naturally try to earn acceptance. The gospel is simple but hard for some because it is free and not based on our behavior. The love of Christ is not of this world and man isn't capable of imagining such a love. Honestly until a person understands who God is and His holiness goodness they won't see how amazing it is that God actually wants to have a personal relationship with us. Treating us like we don't and will never deserve. He is who He says he is and anyone who sincerely, honestly takes the time to seek Him will find Him. The Lord Jesus Christ is worthy of all worship. If you meet Him you will understand why He is dearly loved.
 
God did not create Satan. God created an angel. A cherubim that was perfect, beautiful, and blameless. However, Lucifer felt that he was an equal to God and tried to overthrow God. He soon learned that he could not win and was expelled from God's presence.

When God created Adam and Eve he placed them in his garden and communed with them daily. He walked and talked with them because they were sinless and blameless. Satan, having been cast out of paradise, was jealous and decided to destroy the relationship that God had with these two people.

God did not create Satan. The pride and lust for power of one of the most powerful angels created Satan.
You just said that god created an angel. That angel became satan. Therefore, god created satan. You just said it yourself.

Isn't god omniscient? Doesn't everything happen according to his divine plan? If the answer is yes to both of those questions, then he not only knew that Lucifer would fall from grace, but he also planned to make it happen.

If he knows everything and he created everything, then he knew what would happen with his creation and therefore, is ultimately responsible for everything. I made this argument like a week ago.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Please provide said "scientific credence" to a god please. I am eager with anticipation for such a revelation
There's been several sources cited in this thread. Go do a Google search. There's many scientific theories that point to a higher power that created the universe.
 
It just seems to me, and I could be wrong, that you arent here for a "good" discussion about religion because that would include being open minded.

Instead Is seems that you are here to belittle Christianity and deter those that do believe from believing, which in my opinion, is immoral.

Also, some of the comparisons you've made in regards to Christianity are down right disrespectful, not only to believers but to those that have died to give you the right to practice religion freely, the freedom that you use to make fun of those who believe.

It's disresepctful to talk so recklessly about something that many people gave their lives for. The same religion that this country was founded on, the greatest country in the world was built on this belief that you deem to be mythology or a hoax.

I don't really want to get into an argument about this, just wanted to say my peace.
Look I was raised christian and confronted my belief system, and ultimately turned a complete 180 from what I was originally believing in. Yet I'm the one who is close-minded?

What comparisons have I made that are disrespectful of christianity? Generally curious, and I don't doubt for one second that some of what I've said will be offensive to christians, but I'm wondering what you're specifically referring to.

Wow! You take me asking questions about Christianity as disrespectful to veterans? This country wasn't actually founded upon Christianity. It was founded by people who were ESCAPING religious persecution, and wanted to be able to practice religious freedom. The USA is the first country on Earth that made a constitution that specifically states that we must keep the affairs of church and state separate.

I honor and respect all of the veterans who have fought and died for us to be able to have the freedom to choose what religion we want to follow or choose to not follow any religion.

Do you guys think we should be governed by a theocracy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
And Genesis also said the earth was created in 7 days, but that's not true

Why is it not true? Because it doesn't fit your belief that everything evolved over millions and millions of years? Read Genesis 1 again. Here I'll quote a few of pertinent verses:

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. - Genesis 1:3-8

After every day that God made His creation for that day, He said there was evening and there was morning, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd day, etc. That tells me it was a 24 hour day each time. He didn't say there was 100 evenings and 100 mornings.
 
Why is it not true? Because it doesn't fit your belief that everything evolved over millions and millions of years? Read Genesis 1 again. Here I'll quote a few of pertinent verses:

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. - Genesis 1:3-8

After every day that God made His creation for that day, He said there was evening and there was morning, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd day, etc. That tells me it was a 24 hour day each time. He didn't say there was 100 evenings and 100 mornings.
Ok OG, it appears that you believe in a literal Genesis. Here's a question I have for you. So there was Adam and Eve, and then they had Cain and Able. Can you explain to me how anyone came after that? Are you saying that the entire world was populated from one family of four? Which would mean that the entire human race is just one big gigantic incest. I mean incest is pretty universally looked down upon and considered disgusting and immoral by basically every society on Earth. Yet according to Genesis, that's how the whole world was populated. You run into the same problem after the great flood when Noah's family, of I think 8 people, repopulate the entire world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
It's all THEORY! You can't prove anything because it's all THEORY! It's no more provable than God because it's all THEORY! Theories that scientist change when their previous THEORIES fall through. You choose to believe those THEORIES instead of God and that's fine. You continue to belittle people that believe in God and that screams of insecurity and jealousy IMO. If you don't believe that's fine but please stop acting like you're smarter than everyone because you don't. Nobody's belittled you because of your beliefs or lack thereof. Show a little class if you have any.

I know I'm kinda late here but changing a theory is part of the scientific method. And these aren't wholesale changes. As we find out more about the universe and how it works we tweak our theories to reflect that. You choose to believe in God and the biblical version of creation and that fine. I wouldn't belittle some for it, I once believed the same. But don't be surprised when someone says you're crazy if you tell the earth is around 7,000 years old. (I don't know if you believe the biblical version of creation just guessing that you do. And if you don't I apologize.)

If I believed the biblical version as some do, I would aleast say God set in motion the universe and evolution is a part of it. Cause the science is there. While scientist may not yet have a good answer for what caused the Big Bang, we can study the effect and come up with working theories that explains, to the best of our current knowledge, how and why it works the way it does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Ok OG, it appears that you believe in a literal Genesis. Here's a question I have for you. So there was Adam and Eve, and then they had Cain and Able. Can you explain to me how anyone came after that? Are you saying that the entire world was populated from one family of four? Which would mean that the entire human race is just one big gigantic incest. I mean incest is pretty universally looked down upon and considered disgusting and immoral by basically every society on Earth. Yet according to Genesis, that's how the whole world was populated. You run into the same problem after the great flood when Noah's family, of I think 8 people, repopulate the entire world.

Also kinda leaves a problem as to where different races come from. Two black, white, asian people can create baby after baby but that baby will never be a different color.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
With all due respect


Senseless.....having an eye witness sure helps more than guessing what happened.

Whoever seen a fish...with human legs.....with monkey arms.....with hair on its back....speaking spanish? Nobody. It never happened

Well I did see a puppy monkey baby a couple of weeks back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I know I'm kinda late here but changing a theory is part of the scientific method. And these aren't wholesale changes. As we find out more about the universe and how it works we tweak our theories to reflect that. You choose to believe in God and the biblical version of creation and that fine. I wouldn't belittle some for it, I once believed the same. But don't be surprised when someone says you're crazy if you tell the earth is around 7,000 years old. (I don't know if you believe the biblical version of creation just guessing that you do. And if you don't I apologize.)

If I believed the biblical version as some do, I would aleast say God set in motion the universe and evolution is a part of it. Cause the science is there. While scientist may not yet have a good answer for what caused the Big Bang, we can study the effect and come up with working theories that explains, to the best of our current knowledge, how and why it works the way it does.

Some claim that evolution is unbiblical and unscientific. Others claim that science proves evolution. Which view is right? Four clear observations show why evolution—which asserts that fish became fishermen by nature’s provision of new biological information—is utterly unscientific.

1. Fossils do not show evolution.

Many undisputed fossil lineups should show transitions between the unrelated creatures that evolutionists insist share common ancestry. But the few fossil forms claimed by some evolutionists to represent transitions between basic kinds are disputed by other evolutionists on scientific grounds.1

2. Living creatures do not evolve between kinds.

Experiments designed to detect evolution should have caught a glimpse by now, but they have not. When researchers simulated fruit fly evolution by systematically altering each portion of fruit fly DNA, they found only three resulting fruit fly categories, published in 1980: normal, mutant, or dead.2 A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations.3 Similarly, microbiologists watched 40,000 generations of E. coli bacteria become normal, mutant, or dead.4 None truly evolved.5

Big-picture evolution did not happen in the past, and it is not happening now. Other evidence excludes evolution from real science.

3. Genetic entropy rules out evolution.

Population geneticists count and describe genetic mutations over many generations in creatures like plants and people. Mutations are copying errors in the coded information carried by cells. The overwhelming majority of mutations have almost no effect on the body. Also, far more of these nearly neutral mutations slightly garble genetic information than any others that might construct new and useful information.6 Therefore, many more slightly harmful mutations accumulate than any other kind of mutation—a process called “genetic entropy.” Each individual carries his own mutations, plus those inherited from all prior generations.

Cells are left to interpret the damaged information like scholars who try to reconstruct text from tattered ancient scrolls. Ultimately, too little information remains, resulting in cell death and eventually extinction. Genetic entropy refutes evolution by ensuring that information is constantly garbled and by limiting the total generations to far fewer than evolutionary history requires.

4. All-or-nothing vital features refute evolution.

Finally, transitioning between basic kinds is not possible because it would disable vital creature features. For example, the reptile two-way lung could not morph into a bird’s unique one-way lung. The reptile lung would have to stop breathing while it waited for evolution to either construct or transfer function to the new bones, air sacs, and parabronchi required by the new bird system.7 Such a creature would suffocate in minutes, ending its evolution.

Similarly, to transition from an amphibian’s three-chambered heart to a mammal’s four-chambered heart would require either a new internal heart wall that would block vital blood flow, or new heart vessels that would fatally disrupt the amphibian’s vital blood flow.
 
I am by no means an expert on evolution (or really anything), but I can offer my thoughts on this very pertinent question.

Everything in the universe can be broken down into 4 quadrants, the interior individual (thoughts, intentions, etc.), the exterior individual (physical, behavioral, etc.), the interior collective (group thoughts,etc.), and exterior collective (group behavior, etc.). This Ken Wilber's AQAL theory and way to complex to fully explain here, but very interesting stuff.

Anyway, everything is made up of these 4 qualities, from the tiniest particle to the cells making up your tissues, to group entities such as governments, to solar systems and galaxies.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, and everything progresses in lines of development, from less complex to more complex. Atoms are more complex than particles, molecules are more complex than atoms, cells are more complex than molecules, etc. Each level transcends but also includes the previous level.

Now, all mass contains energy (E=mc^2), and all energy is the primordial consciousness (creator). So particles can't help gathering into groups to create atoms, atoms are compelled to form molecules, molecules group to make single celled organisms, etc. At some point in time single cell organisms found that gathering into groups increased their chances for survival, hence multi-cellular organisms, with individual cells taking on specialized functions over time to increase efficiency, which is the primary impulse of evolution. Same rules created individual organisms, groups, villages, etc.

At every level, micro and macro, efficiency rules. The organism that develops the greatest efficiency in terms of securing safety, food, reproduction (Maslow) will survive and re-create itself. What is efficient in one environment may not be efficient in another. So the environment is key. But those that survive and advance get to reproduce their newly developed traits into the next generation.

So survival of the fittest really means survival of that which figures out the environment and develops the traits necessary to overcome its challenges. Could be a set of claws, agility, defense mechanisms, plumage, a more intelligent brain, technology, etc. But the development of those traits, for the organism, begins at the cellular level.

And this is where the scientifically unexplained (so far) processes come into play. This is where the spiritual practices such as those in the bible play a role. Meditation/prayer helps to polarize the interior individual. IOW, a pure/whole body is one in which every cell is on the same page, pulling in the same direction, to overcome the challenges of its environment. An impure body is full of chaos, cells looking out for themselves only (can result in cancer or other diseases).

So to answer your question as briefly as I could (sorry so long), I feel the origin of mutations is the primordial consciousness of the universe, which cannot be proven, but still makes sense to me.

Didn't proof read so this may be a lot of nonsense.

Last sentence sums it up.
 

VN Store



Back
Top