Evolution Is The Only Logical Reason With Any Evidence To Why People...

» Home » Science

Evolution Is The Only Logical Reason With Any Evidence To Why People Are Here Today

Creationism, while it paints a pretty picture, is over all not backed by anything blind faith. Evolution is the only rational reason to how humans cam to be.

SIKLEMIND3

12 Feb 2008 02:33

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

It's sad that so many people voted against this.

Occultdude

23 Jun 2011 18:07

Add a Comment

Yes, what evidence do we have for anyone else?

lavatis

06 May 2008 21:04

3 Comments

What Evidence DO we have for anything else, such as Evolution?

-125_

16 May 2008 02:32

Comment

It's amazing that even in the 21st century, with all the science, all the facts, all the technology. People still believe in a book written by people who thought the world was flat. When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.

Andromeda

09 Apr 2008 22:50

5 Comments

So how does evolution explain why we are here? I see nothing in the process or the theory that goes beyond the how.

innomen

02 May 2008 19:47

Comment

PLEASE PLEASE read about evolution with an open mind and then come back and argue against it if you still feel the same way. So far the arguments against just show that you have no knowledge of what evolution is and how it works.

StBalders

11 Mar 2008 16:59

9 Comments

I completely agree. These arguments sound like something a pastor would feed his or her congregation, and these people just ate it up like little brainless goldfish.

Moegreche

11 Mar 2008 17:04

Comment

Ok ,the fossil record may not prove it beyond doubt but it certainly does nothing to disprove it.  I don't agree macro evolution is wrong.  But we are going round in circles here.

Whereas brainwashed is a bit severe (particularly in your case) people must be heavily influenced when they follow their god, why would christian families have christian children, muslim families have muslim children and so on 99 % of the time.  Only because they have been told what to think from a young age.  Please don't tell me they are sat down and said here are the 2 big theory's on why we are here.

I wasn't brought up by an athiest family, I have many a discussion with my Gran who is C of E.  My mum just doesn't want to talk about it.  But neither are 'disappointed' with me.  Even in a secular country like England, my generation (I am 34) were all brought up with plenty of influence to believe in God, at home, school and if you where unlucky enough, church.  A vast majority of us now are agnostic or athiest, I have just upgraded to the latter.  It is easier here because the C of E is quite lax and you would never be shunned from having your own belief.  My Catholic and Muslim friends are not the same, purely because they have had much more pressure put on them and they would run the risk of being shunned to a degree from their family and peers.  Although a harsh term, this is brainwashing.

I get your point but one side does qualify to be called brainwashing more than the other.

Comment

You said I am severely brainwashed? If I am, tell my how I am wrong about my beliefs. 
It is true that most children continue their parent's traditions and Europe is known for casting off its Catholic and Protestant ways probably in part because of its bad history with it. But have you asked yourself if the Catholics and Protestants of Europe's history loved their enemies and did what "Jesus" commanded? Would you reject Yahshua because false followers misrepresented him?

How can you not see that the fossil record proves it wrong? Darwin saw it as a valid argument against the one he got credit for. Either species are related and can be seen to be in the fossil record or we see that they are not because of the countless species that don't exist that would exist if macroevolution is true. That is proof different species were never related. It is obvious to me, but I understand that you are "brainwashed." Just because something makes sense doesn't mean it is right.
By the way, what is "C of E"?

Comment

These are some terrible arguments against evolution. I'm surprised that people still don't accept it. That being said, there are some really important things for people to understand about evolution:

1) It is a chaotic process, not a "forward moving" process as many people assume. The argument that things decay over time simply does not apply to evolution.

2) The evidence for evolution is absolutely overwhelming. It is still an ongoing study to really understand such a chaotic process, but the facts are very visible and accessible.

3) Using the bible as a defense of creation is simply begging the question and as such cannot be considered a credible argument.

4) Evolution has been observed. There's this virus called the AIDS virus... Maybe you've heard of it? The main reason we can't kill it is because it mutates so rapidly. Evolution is -guess what- chaotic and selective mutation.

Moegreche

11 Mar 2008 16:49

8 Comments

1) How does entropy not apply to macroevolution? Your claim is not supported by evidence. The idea allows for "forward moving" macroevolution, so it is contrary to entropy which says that no "simple" or "low" level of organization that is physical can become "more organized" in isolation. If it is contrary to entropy, it is contrary to science.

2) Macroevolution is full of overwhelming claims but no evidence. If there is so much, why not list them? Even a little list?

3) I agree that just because the Bible says all things were created that that does not make it proof but I can say that the Bible could never have existed for no reason the same way the universe, which is so much more intricate in the physical, could never have come without a reason. In a way, the Bible could be used to support creation, but I tend to not use it to be different. There had to be an ultimate cause.
If you do not agree with that science, then say what is wrong with it, if you think so.

4) Microevolution (change within a species) has been seen and proven but not macroevolution (change from one species to another), which is the real issue here.

Stranger

14 Mar 2008 20:04

Comment

2) Macroevolution is full of overwhelming claims but no evidence. If there is so much, why not list them? Even a little list?

3) I agree that just because the Bible says all things were created that that does not make it proof but I can say that the Bible could never have existed for no reason the same way the universe, which is so much more intricate in the physical, could never have come without a reason. In a way, the Bible could be used to support creation, but I tend to not use it to be different. There had to be an ultimate cause. 
If you do not agree with that science, then say what is wrong with it, if you think so.

4) Microevolution (change within a species)  has been seen and proven but not macroevolution (change from one species to another), which is the real issue here.

Comment

2) Macroevolution is full of overwhelming claims but no evidence. If there is so much, why not list them? Even a little list?

4) Microevolution (change within a species)  has been seen and proven but not macroevolution (change from one species to another), which is the real issue here.

Comment

It is a law because it governs the physical world. They may not call it a law, but it is. I am not saying it is a synonym for disorder. I say it makes clear that nothing physical can become more "orderly" or "organized" or "complicated" into more intricate ways in isolation (without cause). The point is: things break down over time. Is that definition wrong? It is not the most detailed, but it'll do.
I had to look up the word "preclude" because I did not know it. Preclude is "make impossible." Yes. Entropy does make impossible increasing order of macroevolution. The fact that all physical things break down over time in isolation without exception does make impossible the idea of physical things building up (in isolation from powerful, outside intelligence) over any amount of time. That means that macroevolution is in opposition to science.
What is entropy to you? If you give me an honest definition, you will likely have to admit that it contradicts macroevolution. 
Where is the list of evidence I asked for? You don't have to show it if you don't want to but you would if you had evidence.

Comment

I know I told you before, but to answer again for the sake of those unaware that I answered you: I never said that any increasing order is impossible because of entropy. I should have been clear and will make clear what I said when I said that "...it makes clear that nothing physical can become more 'orderly' or 'organized' or 'complicated' into more intricate ways in isolation." By the isolation, I meant "left alone", without some force to cause it who would be "God" or something natural. I will add to it: "without cause." I have been unclear too often lately.

"The Big Bang 'Theory' contradicts science" debate continues more on this issue with Hizashi and I and anyone else who wants to join. I want to focus on that one. There are plenty of debates on this issue that are virtually identical as a debate. "Evolution is wrong," "The Big Bang 'Theory' contradicts science," "Neither creationism nor Intelligent design have any scientific explanatory power," and more are pretty much the same debate.

I've noticed that a lot of people are arguing against evolution because humans haven't changed significantly.

First of all: Evolution is an extremely slow process in most cases. A new species isn't going to form in a matter of a few years.

Second point: We DID change permanently. Since humans formed we've gained new hair colors, eye colors, skin colors, resistances to weather, body types, genetic diseases, resistances to diseases, we've grown smarter and stronger, and a bunch of other things.

Third point: We kinda removed natural selection from the equation, what with more advanced medical care (bye bye need for disease resistance), less reliance on being naturally strong, eyeglasses (used to be you had bad vision you had trouble living), better diets, and all the other amenities we've added.

Fourth point: There's no proof for intelligent design.

Fifth point: Evolution and creationism can go hand in hand, people

Sixth point: If you take the Christian explanation to be true, then how long are God's days? A day a Jupiter, for example, is WAY longer than one on Earth.

Seventh point: We can see other planets (like Titan, a moon of Jupiter) forming like how scientists predict the Earth formed

Eight point: Creationism is a theory, too!

Ninth point: The Bible contradicts itself, and has several questionable points. For a few examples of what I'm talking about scarybiiblequotes (dot) com is a good source

Tenth point: You can't disprove evolution.

Eleventh point: We didn't evolve from chimpanzees or gorillas or whatever, people! We evolved from a common ancestor!

For the rest of my points I suggest you actually research this.

FoxFire

24 Feb 2008 19:28

1 Comment

What new species ever arose from another? I want to know exactly what species and how it happened with evidence, please.

Stranger

04 Mar 2008 19:32

Comment

Well yea we have proof with the monkeys!!

cmonnot

16 Feb 2008 06:22

2 Comments

What proof? Their being similar to us is not proof that they are related to us by blood. Science is not supposed to be about assumptions.

Stranger

19 Feb 2008 14:53

Comment

I do believe in evolution to be a significant reason and explanation for the way us human beings are today. However, I hold the opinion that the concepts of Evolution and God (Religion) are able to run hand to hand; who is to say that, for those who are religious, God is not responsible for everything we see today, including nature's development throughout time?

It may well be possible that God almost planned for, or intended, there to be some sort of valid, scientific explanation to exist; indeed, if we had almost no knowledge about anything at all (admittedly, even now, we know merely a fraction of a single percentage of everything there is to know), we would all be pretty bemused about everything - even more so than we, arguably, are currently.

jsh4

14 Feb 2008 19:10

4 Comments

I keep reading comments for the evolution side of the debate but I have read nothing that is backing any of your beliefs in evolution. If we are really going to debate something, I think that evidence (just like a trial in court) is the key factor in the debate. I respect everyones opinion, but I wish I could hear more about why evolution is your belief over creationism, rather than everyone saying why they don't belief in the Bible and God. Not directed at you personally jsh4, just a comment about the entire debate.

roxanne

14 Feb 2008 19:23

Comment

I believe evolution.if people want to believe that god said 'let there be light' and there was then that's fine, and this world was made entirely in 7 days then that's great, but people that believe in what god did and what the bible 'states' don't try and turn people that believe in science.its not going to work...lol

tequila68

14 Feb 2008 14:50

3 Comments

Hey Tequila. I agree that no one can change someones beliefs. But I am always curious in why people believe in what they believe in. Could you expand on your beliefs in evolution over creation. What has happened or what have you studied to cause you to believe in evolution. And is evolution your explanation to why we are all here? Hope to hear from you.

roxanne

14 Feb 2008 19:14

Comment

How do you know stuff how would everything be possible like the bible how do you know someone just made it up

princess

12 Feb 2008 21:26

4 Comments

It was not made up. I can tell you that. God himself tells us all over the Bible. You should read it. Here is your proof:
We are here. We are wonderful things. How could we come from monkeys?
Look around you. The great things of this earth could not have been made by evolution nor a Big Bang.
How do you know he does not exist.
Some say, "The world is terrible and God is bad because all this is happening." But the truth is, WE put it here. Our sin. I am a sinner, you are, we all are. But, the only perfect person is Jesus Christ. So there you have it.

-125_

12 Feb 2008 21:31

Comment

Princess, I think that what most Christians would say is that their faith is the strongest part of them.  I could tell you to read the Bible, or read books by great writers claiming the Bible is real and the evidence is there.  There are books like that and the evidence is there.  But that might not be good enough for people.  I can only tell you that the day I gave my life to Christ was the first day of my life.  I was 35 years old and in the same boat you are probably in now.  I tried to disprove God and Jesus Christ and the more i tried, the more my faith in Him began to grow.  I don't think anyone will ever be able to convert people by their words or wisdom.  I think that what happened to me is that I invited Jesus to come into my life and at that point I really did not believe in Him.  Once I opened that door, things started to change and i started feeling Him and seeing evidence of Him.  Try just living your life and treating people like Jesus did.  That is always a good start.  Even if you don't accept him as your savior, your life will improve in every aspect.  I think that people are afraid to give Him a chance, for whatever reason.  It is easier for people to believe in scientific evidence about who we are and where we came from.  But remember, there is nothing out there that proves this other than the Bible.  Before you give up on God, do your homework and try to disprove Him.  Don't listen to others words because we are all just human beings and what do we really know. :)

Evolution is the only rational explanation we currently have. Sure, you've got FAIRY TALES like the Bible, but they have absolutely no evidentiary support whatsoever. It's blind faith and blind ignorance that keeps people from accepting reality.

Cephus

12 Feb 2008 16:31

8 Comments

I just want to ask you a couple of questions. Have you tried to disprove the Bible or done your own investigation? And if you know what is real, where is your evidence? What is reality? You my friend are also living by blind faith. Ignorance is claiming something with no hard proof evidence to back it up. Show me the evidence. I have read much about the claims of evolution and I have found nothing that 100% backs it up. If you are going to claim you know what reality is, then point us in the right direction to learn what you already know instead of calling people blind and ignorant. I don't mean to be rude, but blind faith is everywhere, not just in the creationist view.

roxanne

13 Feb 2008 22:50

Comment

No, I actually said that FRANCIS COLLINS made that statement.  If you're interested in finding out, then by all means read any of the books by Dr. Collins and find out.  I recommend "Cracking the Code of Life" personally, but his newest book from a religious perspective gives the same message.  Go do your own research.  It's painfully obvious by the statements that you make that you're vastly ignorant of the subject matter, otherwise you wouldn't make the grossly ridiculous claims and ask high-school level questions, such as your fossil question above.  The reality is, we are finding more transitional fossils all the time, we just finished a very complete sequence for whales, in fact, but we can only place "missing links" in their proper places as they are found and that depends largely on luck.  It's about like saying there were no pirates because you haven't dug up any pirate treasure yet.

If you want to say that deities are not physical, that's fine.  But if they interact at all with our reality, then they leave evidence, period.  It is simply not possible to interact with and do the things that the Bible claims and not leave evidence.  So you're left with a choice, either your deity has not interacted with our reality because there is no evidence, or your deity does not exist.  Take your pick.

Comment

I know you said Francis Collins made that statement but you brought that up to support your argument that the fossil record and DNA prove macroevolution. Because you seem to believe it, I asked you how the record and DNA are evidence.
You say "...we are finding more transitional fossils all the time..." What fossils? Tell me what they are so I can look them up and show you that they are not transitional between other species. Please don't tell me to look for them when you can tell me yourself if they are evidence to you. If they are able to stand up to criticism, then you should be eager to tell me exactly what "evidence" there is. 
Pirates are known to have existed and still do, I've heard, so the parallel does not work with macroevolution.

How did deity affect the physical? I don't know exactly but since deity has the power to make matter "from scratch," deity can interact with it without a problem. You can't say it is not possible for deity to interact with the physical because science can't say that- only your idea of what deity is makes you say that, I think. Because only deity could be the ultimate cause, it was deity that made the universe. That is the support I have for why deity can interact with the physical: if it can create it, it can interact with it.

I plan on responding to Hizachi's claim that there did not have to be an ultimate cause.

Comment

I don't want to go to a random site about that because you might say the site is not in line with your thinking or you don't approve of it so I want you to tell me what door to take exactly. I should have told you this many comments ago.

I have said that deity is unscientific as an explanation for the origin of all nature at some other place. I have also said deity is the only explanation that does not contradict science. Because I did not claim it was scientific, I am not supposed to point to direct, physical evidence for deity. It is reason I have for deity, not evidence to touch as direct evidence. 
(Because macroevolutionists claim that macroevolution is science, they have to provide evidence that it is scientific (observable, testable...).

Exactly how do I know that "God" can make matter from scratch? By realizing that no physical or natural explanation could be the ultimate cause for the existence of all nature. Only deity could be the ultimate cause because it alone explains the ultimate cause for the existence of natural things without contradicting science. Because only deity does not contradict science as an explanation for the ultimate cause, THEN IT WAS deity that made the Universe. That is how I can tell that deity made matter from scratch. It is reason I have, not scientific evidence. I think you have seen my reasoning before but I repeat it because you ask how I know.

Your last comment is disgusting. Your character is revealed by your words.

See that is what I was talking about when I said that creationism is backed by nothing but blind faith in the bible and in "god". Evolution took millions of years not 7000

SIKLEMIND3

12 Feb 2008 03:01

2 Comments

We have no scientific evidence that the world is millions of years old. We have theories from scientific forms of dating, but no hard proof. If you honestly believe that the world has been around that long, then you are also living by blind faith. Investigate it, google it, everything is a theory. Then try an investigation disproving the Bible and its word. I found it very difficult to do. I was an atheist and non believer until I did an investigation of my own. If you truly believe in something, you should have evidence backing it up. If you do, then I would like to know where you found it so I may read or study it as well.

roxanne

13 Feb 2008 22:39

Comment

Adaption can be performed by anything that moves(temporary survival skill)
Natural selection is the knowledge that some individuals are born freaks and disaster overlooks
them because they have a small advantage(once
disaster ceases, the offspring, like the last gen.,
continue to spawn with the majority following the original gene instructions.
The idea of evolution is void if it's supporting theories bail.

Arcangel7

28 Jun 2012 14:40

Add a Comment

It is still just a hypothesis not a fact.
In my point of view, evolution theory is contradicted and lacks logical explanation.

a-s

26 Dec 2011 14:27

Add a Comment

No

10 Points

AR454

23 Jun 2011 18:54

1 Comment

What can you buy with points?

Arcangel7

28 Jun 2012 14:42

Comment

Okay..
Think of something as simple as a watch..once opened, its soo complicated..the way every little bolt and screw is fitted together and works togther so that the watxh itself can work..

That watch was created to work like that...and its creator would have been a craftsman or something..

The logic is that everything that has been created, must have a creator..we humans have been created, this world has been created, so has this universe..and the only explanation that of the creation of the universe and evolution is the Lord..=]

ziku94

30 Oct 2009 07:06

1 Comment

You forget that watches don't have to start off as watches. It can start off as a circle template for drawing, then a circle template with redundant hands, then a circle template that fits in a circular dish, then that circular dish has gears and a quartz crystal, then it has redundant straps, then you add the glass case and it becomes a toy watch, then add the batteries and it becomes a real watch.

Natural Selection only eliminates an organism if it has traits detrimental to its survival. A trait that neither helps nor hurts doesn't get eliminated, and neither does a trait that kicks in once the children are independent. That's why men have nipples, we still have appendixes, there are more diseases that affect old people, etc.

Occultdude

23 Jun 2011 18:05

Comment

Hey be careful to take shots and a say one is insane, and many is a religion. Anyone who studies religion would know about the dark ages and the many reformations etc. I believe science is an amazing thing. But i believe science has its limits (if I am allowed to say) Faith is important in the bible as it calls for it. Because carbon dating and any other dating method suggests the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Science forged much of our technology. But science has done many bad things as well. And even doctors come out saying the we're wrong about a certain medication or product and it should stop being used.

Science is the blunt term for all these 'discoveries' great and small.

Now I am not defending every religion. I have my own conviction about certain types of religions and certain types of sciences.

And you guys that want a philosophical point on why God exists you can look up Rene Descartes the father of modern philosophy. Note Christians it may be a tad weird. But it is a different approach.

gottfried

15 Mar 2009 02:04

Add a Comment

I am no great defender of creationism. I just find it hard to accept that a couple of amoeba could get together in the primordial ooze, and 4 billion years later be watching plasma screen TVs.

LeonAinSA

01 Nov 2008 19:55

2 Comments

Before you discuss or debate abiogenesis or evolution it's always best to understand it first.

Andromeda

04 Nov 2008 18:38

Comment

Using logic and evolution in the same sentence. Whooo

v00v

23 Oct 2008 04:21

Add a Comment

There is no evidence that we come from animals.

And do you call it logic that we came about by chance and that the universe put itself toghether?

webman1200

11 Oct 2008 20:38

3 Comments

Endogenous Retrovirus fragments are a start.. and don't mix cosmic evolution with biological evolution, they are different theories.

Ribo

14 Oct 2008 03:04

Comment

This is a place for DEBATES, not to state facts. And of course you are right

iLoveJesus

03 Sep 2008 06:33

Add a Comment

So far not in it's entirety, like okay, where did
humans, come from, and where did what ever it was that begat us come from, where
did that come from? As it all been explain definitively yet? But most importantly, what explains how more than why?

Bacchus

02 May 2008 19:35

1 Comment

Well we can create forms of life such as mold and mildew with items that already exist on this planet. It is believed that if you had a sphere of water, just the right amount of heat and some light, if those things mix and are coupled with lightning. You can create like DNA or something like DNA which becomes protists and other biotic life forms, add the theory of evolution and it is no that hard to imagine

Evidence

06 May 2008 15:40

Comment

I am not so sure it is able to explain "why" we are here. It does a good job of explaining the theory of our origin, but to the more metaphysical question of "why" - not even close.

innomen

02 May 2008 19:20

Add a Comment

Its not the only logical reason. What about all those aliens. Maybe we are all travelers from another planet trying to find our way home. Maybe we are devolving .Backward or forward up or down its all a matter of relative view.

Teachdirt

14 Apr 2008 02:59

1 Comment

i like arguments that are from outside the box, like this one

nickwhan

03 May 2008 12:39

Comment

Logic, in its most basic sense, is defined as a system of reasoning. Logical reasoning can apply to almost any belief, whether it is objective or not. For this reason, I cannot agree with the topic, due to the fact that logic should not be what you base your conclusion on, plausible and cited evidence should be. Also, as I can’t stress enough, evolution is not necessarily meant to describe the origins of life on Earth, but rather their current state of being today. What your topic heading should have said was something along the line of “Evolution Is The Only Scientifically Evidential Theory With Any Evidence Explaining The Current State Of All Organisms”. If this were the debating topic, I’d be happy to support your claim.

Hizashi

19 Mar 2008 09:38

Add a Comment

I would like to see the best evidence evolution has to offer

kut77less

09 Mar 2008 17:58

3 Comments

Then read about it with an open mind. It is complicated and extremely simple at the same time. it is fascinating and beautiful. Please read about it and understand it, you will be enlightened and overwhelmed.

StBalders

11 Mar 2008 16:54

Comment

Are you serious? Science has been wrong before! Hello they once thought the world was flat so when someone proves to me that science is always right and that will prove evolution is the ONLY logical solution.

ambercol

01 Mar 2008 00:56

3 Comments

The point here is that science is falsifiable. Religion is not. Science is not always right, which makes it an actual valid epistemological approach to our surroundings.

Moegreche

11 Mar 2008 16:51

Comment

The best way to define evolution is thus:

"Basically, the world is a big jigsaw puzzle of atoms, and somehow the jigsaw puzzle fell out of the box and landed all into place. . . . And everything in this world is accidentally organized right now."

Nothing can be organized without someone to organize it.

Set up a chunk of playdough and tell me when it makes something by itself. Watch and tell me.

IDGuardTK

20 Feb 2008 23:07

4 Comments

Playdough is not a biological organism, and as such cannot "make something by itself."
We only see organization in the universe, when in actuality it is extremely chaotic. These types of cosmological arguments haven't worked since the ancient Greeks and they still don't.

Moegreche

11 Mar 2008 16:53

Comment

First things first, science is the study of observed phenomena so i would have to say a mis definition of science is always the case in an argument on the origin of life.
Secondly, there is no point in slandering things as fairy tales, because on either side of the coin there are varying presuppositions. I would say i don't find evolution to be the answer, because mathematically trying to model billions of years off of a 7,000 year sampling time(which wasn't very well documented prior to 1000 years ago (very generous of me)) I just find this argument humorous because its not science, and there are always bible bashers, and bible pounders. . . . Have at it

veridicus

18 Feb 2008 21:55

1 Comment

It seems to me that you have nothing to on the debate of evolution, whether or no science has to do with evolution is up to you to determine. But it seems to me that you just may be a science bashing religious Zealot person.

And you don't have to model even millions of years of something to find an answer. I throw a rock in the air one minute and it falls back down. " I don't study anything"

I throw a rock in the air with the study of physics and i HAve a good idea as to what brought it down. I can testit and do it again and I can continue to sya gravity brought it down. But I will never be able to say that the very first thropw was brought down by gravity. Because I did not study it. though gravity is more than likely the answer to that question.

The same way I can grow mold on a piece of toast in the proper conditions study the variables and decide why it is their. I can then apply that theory to life and its beginnings. From here I will know if the factors apply and from their if it works I have seen lifes creation that has a chance to evolve

I am not going to bash your religion just answer what test you have done to show that life was creeated by a God?

The word of God has been tested with the methods of science

But Gods methods and teachings cannot test scientific theory!!!!

Evidence

06 May 2008 15:59

Comment

And you don't have to model even millions of years of something to find an answer. I throw a rock in the air one minute and it falls back down. " I don't study anything"

I throw a rock in the air with the study of physics and i HAve a good idea as to what brought it down.  I can testit and do it again and I  can continue to sya gravity brought it down.  But I will never be able to say that the very first thropw was brought down by gravity. Because I did not study it.  though gravity is more than likely the answer to that question.

The same way I can grow mold on a piece of toast in the proper conditions study the variables and decide why it is their. I can then apply that theory to life and its beginnings.  From here I will know if the factors apply and from their if it works I have seen lifes creation that has a chance to evolve

I am not going to bash your religion just answer what test you have done to show that life was creeated by a God?

The word of God has been tested with the methods of science

But Gods methods and teachings cannot test scientific theory!!!!

Comment

And you don't have to model even millions of years of something to find an answer. I throw a rock in the air one minute and it falls back down. " I don't study anything"

I am not going to bash your religion just answer what test you have done to show that life was creeated by a God?

The word of God has been tested with the methods of science

But Gods methods and teachings cannot test scientific theory!!!!

The major problem is that what is now being pushed as "science," is nothing more that the philosophy of naturalism posing as science. You see, creationist and evolutionists both give a god of some kind all their faith. For Christians, this is obvious. We worship God. The evolutionists however, worship time. Every argument puts huge faith in time. Any objection to evolution is responded to with "billions of years"

davidsuggs

17 Feb 2008 02:37

2 Comments

They think time does the trick but it really does not because the more time there is for matter in isolation (without outside interference), the more broken down and less organized become all physical things, which means that no "primitive" creature could ever have transformed into higher levels of organization no matter how many billions of years or whatever number is imagined. That is the scientific law of entropy which proves wrong the so-called "theory" of "evolution" (which is really macroevolution) and tosses it out the window. Micro evolution is true, however, since it is proven. It is a shame that so many overlook this, like I had, and it is worse knowing that most scientists (I have heard it's most) overlook this contradiction.

Stranger

19 Feb 2008 15:15

Comment

Evolution is a theory that was created by those who were trying to explain the beginning of time. I have found no scientific evidence backing evolution. Anthropologists have found bones that they claim to be evolutionary, but no scientists or anthropologist have ever found anything that backs this up. All the bones and fossils found are 100%. What I mean is that they have never found combinations of species, or combinations of different organisms that are 25%, 50% or 75% of something. There are claims that this has occurred, but no hard evidence. Just like those who believe in creation, evolutionists are living by faith alone. None of us have the answers, but there is scientific proof that the Bible is correct and that Jesus Christ is our Savior. I think that an investigation to disprove something should be done by those who claim the Bible is false and a story full of myths. A good book to read is "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. He was an atheist that did his own investigation. A great read for those on both sides of this argument.

roxanne

13 Feb 2008 22:32

9 Comments

I take your point completely, and yes, evolution does have certain questions surrounding it, but it also has several pieces of evidence out there, in support of its existence, to some extent at least. I, myself, can admit that I am by no means an expert in this field. Indeed, I don't at all submit that is is the ONLY logical explanation - far from it, in fact. I almost hold a middle ground between evolution and creationism, believing that there is no reason as to why Science and Religion cannot run in parallel.

jsh4

14 Feb 2008 19:49

Comment

Why am I incorrect on all my points?  The same scientific evidence that evolutionists use to back up their theories are very similar to claims that back up the legitimacy of Biblical scripture and creation.  I have yet to find an argument by any scientist that is 100% proven to explain our existence that the Bible can not counter.  I actually know quite a bit about evolution.  From abiogenesis to retroviral evidence.  From the fossil record to the piltdown man.  I may not be a scientific expert on all matters, or any for that matter, but this does not mean that I know very little about it.  I think that anyone's views on subjects that are this controversial are going to seem ignorant and without basis when each individual can come up with arguments and counterarguments.  I guess I have to be more scientific in my claims to show some that they are based on actual knowledge.

The concept and design of our universe point directly towards a designer.  If many people claim, even non-believers, that the occurrences in the scripture actually happened, which many do (some do not of course) then the prophecies (over 100) should be proof enough.  But that is not always the case.  If Jesus was actually a living man, then his teachings of the Old Testament provides evidence of it's truth.  
Scientifically, evidence that life does not originate from non-living materials is so prevalent that it is a basic principle of science.  I think this is called Biogenesis-where living things can only come from living things.  Look at the complexity of a DNA strand.  To me, this is proof of an obvious designer.  Proteins are another good example of, to me, an obvious designer.  Proteins that make up a cell will not form in nature, anywhere, except in already living cells. DNA is the computer chip or switch that turns the productivity of a cell on and off.  Once this process is complete, a protein could not function unless they were properly folded and tagged by the DNA.  This process is obviously more complex than this, but I think that i got the gist of it.  I just do not think that there is evidence that could explain, without using a creator, that this process could happen on it's own.  This being said, explain to me where the information contained in each living cell in all living organisms comes from?  
I recently became an MSNBC freak.  Politics and the war will do that to you I guess.  There have been many atheists to come out and side with creation due to the origin of life and the complexity of nature.  Another scientific explanation is the old 6,000 years objection.  The Bible is completely silent when it comes to the age of the earth.  Nowhere is there mention of this.  
I also strongly believe that science points toward a creator by using the Big Bang Theory.  Einstein maintained that the result of his theory of relativity verified that God exists and created the universe.  (Einstein and Religion ; Physics and Theology by Max Jammer)  I will not go into detail, but this is amazing.  Belief in a static universe, which has been scientifically debunked, was Darwin's starting point for the theory of evolution.  Even Stephen Hawking and friends have said that time was created.  2 Timothy 1:9 which states, “The Grace of God that we now experience was put into effect before the beginning of time”.  
I think a great book for any creationist or evolutionists to read is "The Creator and The Cosmos" by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross.  He covers just about every part of science that gives evidence for a creator.  
"The Case For Christ" is another great read by Lee Strobel.

Comment

Your entire argument seems to be based around the idea that complexity undoubtedly indicates design, a ploy most often used by Creationists still today, all to no prevail (I can provide a list of reasons why life looks undersigned if you’d like). I’ve already informed you that your argument is that of incredulity, however, let me try to explain it once more. Complexity usually means something is hard to understand. But the fact that one cannot understand how something came to be does not indicate that one may conclude it was designed. On the contrary, lack of understanding indicates that we must not conclude design or anything else. According to the definition of design, we must determine something about the design process in order to infer design. We do this by observing the design in process or by comparing it with the results of known designs. The only example of known intelligent design we have is human design. Life does not look man-made. In most cases, the inference of design is made because people cannot envision an alternative (which is referring back to the “argument from incredulity” notation). Historically, supernatural design has been attributed to lots of things that we now know form naturally, such as lightning, rainbows, seasons, volcanoes, earthquakes, ect. Simply not understanding the answer to how the formation of a tornado takes place does not imply that a divine deity intervened to cause the result (this is basically what you’re attempting to do with your points on DNA and proteins). Let me inform you that irreducible complexity is not an obstacle to evolution in any way whatsoever. Your “ideal counterargument” I’ve noticed you using throughout many of your posts and comments is something along the line of “If you can’t explain where it came from, then it must have been designed”. However, your need for an explanation and presentable evidence can be easily countered by me simply asking “Alright then, where did we come from and what valid evidence can you present to me that life was designed?” I would like to clarify that nothing you’ve mentioned about design in any of your previous posts or comments would be considered validated evidence supporting design, since almost none of it is objective. There is nothing about irreducibly complex systems that is positive evidence for design. Your claims are nothing but subjective assertions that lack any substance (most of your claims remind me a great deal of Henry Morris or Michael Behe). Evidence that design is far from self-evident is demonstrated by the difficulty people have in trying to describe the objective evidence for it. There are many good reasons why people attempt to see design that is not there. A few of these reasons are as followed:

-Human is anthropomorphizing. We tend to attribute our humanlike qualities to all sorts of things. Since design is what humans do, We attribute it far and wide. 
-Evolution and some human design both involve complex systems dealing with the same physical constraints. 
-Evolution has much in common with a design process. It generates trial-and-error modifications of existing forms and discards the inferior versions.

If you’d like to believe in divine creation, that’s perfectly fine. I have no intention of standing in your way. But please do not base your entire debate on the basis of a question such as “Look around you, is design not obvious?” It’s not credible when compared to scientific methods. My original standpoint was that in the defense of evolution. I really don’t see why you have brought Intelligent Design into the debate, especially if, contrary to what I’ve done whenever you have asked me to, you are unable to present observable evidence to support such claims about it (other than things you consider problems with evolution, which by the way wouldn't be evidence for creation even if they were problems for evolution).

Note: What mainstream scientists, and those popular from the past, believe concerning religious views has nothing to do with the scientific community itself.

Comment

It seems that many of the discussions that I have with atheists or evolutionists end in the same manner.  Me not admitting or accepting what is offered as true is not applicable.  I know what is offered, but it has not given evidence to disprove creation.  Your points definitely coincide with the evolutionist point of view as a whole, but they end at what it is is what it is.  Creation takes it a step further in linking a historically significant gathering of documents (The Bible), that have yet to be proven untrue, and references every aspect of evolution.  That is amazing to me and thanks to evolution, science and my experiences, my faith has grown even stronger.  It always amuses me that evolutionists have to make condescending remarks like "Complexity usually means something is hard to understand" or "Argument from incredulity" and "Your claims are nothing but subjective assertions that lack any substance."  To me this is Psychology 101 in the sense that people sometimes have to degrade one another, for whatever reason, to make themselves feel better about themselves or their beliefs.  I agree that both parties do this, but a true Christian, like Christ himself, does not think this way.

I think that everything that holds true in evolution holds true in creation.  The fact that there is complex design gives way to a designer.  Which is why I brought it up.  Where Did we come from and what valid evidence can I give?  God.  The fact that Jesus was a man and the scriptures have not been falsified, along with science, points directly to God and Christ.  I could go on and present more observable evidence, but evolutionists do that for me.

The only problem with evolution, like I said earlier, is that it does not give way to something greater.  Survival of The Fittest is a perfect example.  This is a strong argument for many evolutionists.  It makes sense.  But from a human perspective, it doesn't.  How many evolutionists in the campaign provide life improving institutions out of their own pocket?  I have never seen an evolutionist  relief program.  What about Greenpeace and animal rights.  Has survival of the fittest led to many harmful occurrences throughout our history and has Christianity not always been there to lend a helping hand?  This is an example of what has led me away from a selfish belief that we are all that there is and that God has no influence in today's world.  Experiences, knowledge and societies influences have molded me and many others to run towards a loving and fearful God.  I think your last point is an example of those you read about and surround yourself with and is not reflective of the entire scientific community.  Just my opinion for I have read many scientific studies that are accepted in the community which point towards a creator.

Once again I do want to say that I enjoy talking with you and your points are clearly taken.  Your evidence is very scholarly and applicable to your beliefs and I don't by any means discredit that.  Sometimes things are unexplainable and all people have is faith and grace alone.  And all some people have is evidence that is observable and objective.  For some, that is good enough.  For others, it is not.  Either way, I think we should all respect each others opinions and refrain from making attacking remarks that have no foundation.  Not to say that you do that.  We can move toward a greater good in all avenues in life, we just need to put our differences aside and work together as a community, nation and world, no matter what our religious, political or social views are.

Comment

Yeah, that does sound right, but i have reason to believe that it's not. The bible does seem like a bunch of bogus, but I've seen people who were changed by it. Also, many miracles have happened that nothing else can explain except for a higher power, God.
The bible has also prophicised about many things, and it's happened. Also, it's kinda depressing to think that we are just going to live one life, and then die. Evolution has a lot of truth to it, but there is a lot of lies mixed in. Just study it more. Don't give up on faith.

taffy4jc

13 Feb 2008 16:44

10 Comments

People can be changed by just about anything, it just takes a positive mental attitude. I've seen people whose lives were changed by playing chess.

The Bible has also not prophecied anything whatsoever, there are a lot of claims where what's actually written in the Bible has been misquoted in an attempt to claim prophecy, but there isn't a single demonstrable fulfilled prophecy anywhere in the Bible.

Maybe you're the one who needs to be studying more so you don't make silly claims.

Cephus

13 Feb 2008 16:48

Comment

Some Messianic Prophecies fulfilled by Yahshua include that...
-he was born in "Bethlehem" 
-all nations would be blessed through Abraham and he would make it so as Abraham's seed (Genesis 12:3)
-"God" would provide a lamb as an offering (Genesis22:8)
-from Y'hudah tribe (Genesis 49:10)
-would be preceded by a messenger like Eliyahu ("Malachi" 3 and 4)
-he would be called out of Egypt ("Hosea" 11:1)
-children would be slaughtered("Jeremiah" 31:15)
-he would bring light to heathen ("Isaiah" 9:1,2)-he would be a stumbling stone to Israel ("Isaiah 8:14,15) DEMONSTRABLE
-he would be betrayed by a close friend ("Psalm" 41:9)
-he would be silent like a sheep before its shearers ("Isaiah" 53)
-healed people ("Isaiah" 35:5,6)
-he was sacrificed for us ("Isaiah" 53)
-counted as a criminal (same as above) 
-Resurrected ("Psalm" 16:10) They require faith in him but
how can most of these be demonstrated? I don't think they can be but some are visible like Daniel's prediction about the four great kingdoms, Yahshua's prophecy that the Temple was going to be destroyed (Luke 21: 6) fulfilled in 70 "C.E.", and that a nation would be born in one day (Isaiah 66:7,8) fulfilled in May 14, 1948 when Israel was made again.  I also need to study more, but for the purpose of refuting false claims more effectively.

Comment

Cephus, why are you so against people that have faith in God.  It sounds like you had a bad experience with Christianity.  It seems to me that whenever I get into a debate or discussion about God, then an argument breaks out.  I always try to listen and understand where people are coming from and how their lives are influenced by their beliefs.  I don't feel that it is my duty to preach or convert people.  But I do feel it is my responsibility to educate myself on both sides of the debate.  Just try to understand that Christ has changed many lives for the better.  And that those who believe in Him, are going to say things the wrong way just like any other human that has ever lived.  I also understand that you have your beliefs and I respect that.  But telling somebody they are ignorant or silly for pouring their heart out to complete strangers is not right.  This is a debate and if you want your beliefs to sound believable, you may want to try to have a little more respect for the other side if you want to be heard.

Comment

Having Christ in my life has really opened my heart and eyes to who I want to be as a person.  Since I have given my life to Christ, I have more love and respect for all people and things on this earth.  I have had many tragedies in my family in the last five years and lost some people very close to me.  My family has had many questions and losses that most people can't deal with.   I am fortunate to have a family that is very strong and positive, and these traits have influenced me as a person.  But if I didn't have my faith, life would seem hopeless.  I guess the greatest thing that God has done in my life is to take the weight of the world off my shoulders.  Every aspect of my life has improved.  Relationships, friendships, finances, happiness, love for others (regardless of who they are or what they believe), health, and work.  If I try to control my own life and future, I tend to complicate it without even realizing it.  I have had many spiritual events occur that are too real to deny.  My father almost passed away after having open heart surgery.  He was in recovery and had an episode that raised his heart rate to dangerous levels and the doctors could not bring him out of it.  I was with him and sat and prayed for almost a half an hour.  I asked God to be with him and that whatever happened, please just take care of him.  When he finally woke up, the first thing he said is that Jesus was with him and that he knew everything was going to be ok.  Most of my friends are atheists.  The great thing is that there is no way that I can use my words to allow them to understand why I am a Christian.  That is not what God intended.  Having him in my life has changed me in a way that I don't have to use words, they all see it.  The things that have happened in my life are more real and true than I could have imagined.  The bottom line is that I truly believe that God is pursuing us all the times and that He loves us no matter what.  Even the fact that we are discussing the possibilities of evolution or creation is, in my opinion, God's attempt at pursuing us.  I simply let him in and he changed my life.  I don't want Cephus to get the impression that I am trying to make claims that are not true.  They are true to me.  I wish you could care about all people, regardless of their beliefs.   I don't know you Cephus and will probably never meet you, but i hope and pray that you are happy and that you could find some sense of respect or love for others.  I think that life becomes much more enjoyable when you spread love around the world.  Belief is belief and faith is faith, no matter what you choose.  But caring about others is unselfish and the doors that open up in your life are limitless.

Comment

Re Stranger: Because this isn't really the place for refuting your  claims, I've posted my refutation of your prophecies on my blog at http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com

Re roxanne:  It's nice that you found something that makes you feel good, it's sad that you've just found a placebo that has no supporting evidence.  There is no such thing as "true to me", there is either true or untrue.  The drunk who sees pink elephants thinks they are true to them, they're just wrong.  I'm not interested in what you subjectively believe, people believe all sorts of silly, irrational things.  I'm interested in what you can objectively prove and you and I both know that you cannot prove that God exists any more than a small child can prove that there are monsters in the closet.  That doesn't mean that those monsters aren't "true to them" though.  It's a much better world when you actually accept reality as it comes instead of clutching tightly to an emotional security blanket, simply because it makes you feel better.  Fact is much more freeing, even if it doesn't provide the ultimately empty "feel good" placebo of religion.

Comment

I was responding to -125 on what Christianity has done for me.  I don't live in a black and white world when there is so much gray.  Evidence to me is not in books, or in others words.  It's not a drunk claiming something, because we all know that alcohol and drugs cause hallucinations and erratic behavior.  You are right, my faith is my security blanket.  I truly believe through history, anthropology, science, and theology that the Bible is true.  And if the Bible is true, then God must exist.  What is objective, is it what I can prove scientifically?  I could go on and on and give you objective proof that turned me into who I am today.  But would you believe me?  All I am saying is that people should do their own investigation, not categorize people, and come to their own conclusions based on what they feel, and not what others feel.  This is a debate that was happening before Christ walked the earth.  No one is ever going to give a conclusive objective answer that will sway one's opinion.  That is up to each individual person.  Answer me this, what fact and objective proof do you have that has made you feel free.  I think the empty "feel good" placebo of religion probably comes from your experiences with religion.  One last thing, my faith is not for me and my feelings, that would be selfish, and Lord knows that I am not the center of the universe.  My faith goes beyond me.  It's not about me feeling good, it's about making others feel good as well.  I have found that my evidence supports my beliefs, and allows me to be happy and feel good because I am spreading love and happiness to others.  The things that make me feel good, most of the time, hurt others.  So my faith often directs me down roads I don't want to walk down.  Thanks again for your comments, it's like hanging out with my friends again.  I miss them. :)

"Evolution" is misleading. It is Macro-evolution that's conflicting with the Bible. I am a micro-evolutionist but I just don't have the... As you folks love to say: "blind faith," to believe that millions of fossils between people and apes (and all other links between allegedly blood-related species) exist when none have been found (I also don't have faith to believe in the few alleged ape-men). That takes faith. At least I admit I take faith to believe in "God." Darwin and his followers do not admit it and claim it is actual science. Then there's entropy. MACROEVOLUTION CONTRADICTS THE SCIENTIFIC LAW OF ENTROPY which says that all natural things become less organized (less ordered) over time in isolation. The more time-the less organization. Macroevolution says the opposite: From less organized comes much more organized ("primitive" beings to people, for example). There is no way in science that that can happen! It makes for interesting science-fiction, though.

Stranger

12 Feb 2008 21:07

4 Comments

I'm a Christian and when I look at the Bible and try to understand God, I see a God that is so big and cool that He could have made evolution work. I have faith enough in God that evolution could be true, and Jesus still died on the cross for me and I still am saved.

bones

13 Feb 2008 02:00

Comment

I have presented some evidence in my argument (above). I made the claim and I backed it up. The details of entropy you can look up yourself. Macroevolution contradicts that scientific law. The fossil record shows no intermittent (in- between) species at all which is proof that different species are not related by blood. Animals may look similar, but it is not science to assume that they are related by blood because of that.
About the "entire scientific establishment": Besides the fact that not all scientists follow the false teaching, they are people like you and I who are NOT INFALLIBLE. Scientists can be wrong. They are not God. Just because the majority of well-educated scientists say something is true does not mean it is. Suppose that 90% of the voters here were on the "against" camp. That is not proof that they and I are right. Level of education does not determine whether someone is right or not. We should not believe them on account of their credentials. The offensive truth is that they are deceived or deceivers or both (gasp!) and most are sincere about their beliefs.  I have questioned not only macroevolution but also the Bible. When I see something that looks like a contradiction in the Bible, I don't want to overlook it because that would be foolish. What would I gain from keeping myself ignorant? Scientists know about entropy better than I and more about the fossil record, but they are taught from youth (as most people I know are) that macroevolution is established science. They don't want to resist the current. They are either ignorant of the contradiction between entropy and macroevolution, or they know it and overlook it. Darwin was less sure about his idea than many macroevolutionists today. He wrote in his famous book  "The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"on page 293 regarding the fossil record: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record." That imperfection is lack of millions of fossils that are supposed to exist if macroevolution is right. If you have the "blind faith" to believe that those countless fossils exist, then what can I say? Do you believe in the unseen and undetected?

WRONG!
The Bible states that we were made in his own image, and if we are changing that is not possible. Furthermore, evolution is a theory and if it is true, why hasn't the human race changed permanently in small amount in the past 7,000 years? It is not 'Blind Faith' it is the belief in God and the Bible.

-125_

12 Feb 2008 02:48

13 Comments

Since there is no rational reason to believe that God exists and the Bible is laughably ridiculous, of course it's blind faith. That's like saying that Harry Potter is real because J.K. Rowling wrote 7 books about him. Oh brother.

Cephus

12 Feb 2008 16:32

Comment

Cephus, what made you? (Don't tell me your parents, please)If you say natural processes then I ask what made that? If you turn the question around and ask me "Well, then, who made God?" I'll tell you that he is not subject to physics or time or anything like that. He always was and that explains it. For him to be supreme and without physical limits is simply his nature. It is difficult to grasp eternity past but he always was, is, and will be. How do I know this? First, I realize that no physical thing can make all physical things when there is a beginning. And if someone says that a natural thing or physical thing caused it, then what caused that?The big bang notion, for example. What caused it? Nothing? It doesn't make sense. That would be more ridiculous than saying that  these words were put together without someone to type them- totally unscientific.  There had to be a beginning because for entropy to happen, there had to be a moment when all things were in highest order. SINCE NOTHING PHYSICAL CAN BE THE REASON FOR ALL THINGS PHYSICAL, THAT MEANS SOMETHING NOT PHYSICAL WAS THE CAUSE. AND IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO SAY THAT NOTHING CAUSED IT BECAUSE FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE IS A REACTION. THE QUESTION THEN, IS WHO OR WHAT? A   supernatural agent or agents is what most people throughout history recognized as the cause. It had to be an agent because there obviously was intent. All the order and marvels of the universe from a galaxy to a DNA strand reveal design. As a matter of fact, YOU are PROOF that "God" exists. You were created and not to die like we see will happen to us all (except at the end of the age, I think), but to live with him. Something separates us from him, which is why he does not show himself to us. As written in the Bible, our sin is what separates us and sin comes from evil desires. That is the reason we die and that is the reason we can't see him. He is too holy to be seen by fallen people. He wants us to be with him and he provided the Way. The Way is himself. He became mortal to suffer and die for what we did wrong as the only acceptable substitute and sacrifice for us. If you believe that he died for you and confess he is "Lord," his blood will replace yours and you will live. Otherwise, you will have to pay for your own sins even though you had the Way available.
Unlike Harry Potter which was written by one person to entertain and make money within a lifetime, the Bible was made over centuries by different Jews who wereinspired (not just figuratively) by the Holy Spirit (I believe) to say the  truth about our wickedness and point to the Messiah who alone can give us Life by forgiving us for hurting others and presenting us as perfect before him so we can live forever with him instead of dying in our sins forever. I believe "God" inspired them to write it because writing about their subjects of greatest importance such as death, purpose, and love are answered like no other scriptures and consistently because no other scriptures (as far as I know) tell us that we are NOT good and can't attain heaven (or a state of bliss, etc.) by our own power. The difference between this Way and other ways is that this way gives an answer and hope for immortality which Yahshua("Jesus") gave us. He fulfilled all of the "first coming" prophesies that were made generations before him. The fact that most Jews (whom I love) rejected him supports his claim, as prophesied in "Isaiah." Look into it and don't take my word for it- if you're "open-minded," that is.

Comment

It was said that Jesus would come to earth and save us from our sins  He did.  Jesus showed himself to the world, he performed miracles, spoke about how others would act and what they would say, he claimed that he would be resurrected, and was, and there are many testimonies in the Bible describing the events of Christ.  Even atheists (some anyway) claim that Jesus was an actual person that walked the earth.  Some say he was a delusional crazy man.  According to many historical studies, the events that unfold in the Bible actually happened.  There are numerous psychological studies done by well respected scholars on the testimonies of those that write about Jesus, and about Jesus himself, and there is not one conclusion that states Jesus was a crazy man or that the events that unfold in the Bible are untrue.  If you study the historical perspective of the Bible only, I think you will find the evidence is there.  Those who want to back Christians or anyone of any faith or belief into a corner are, in my opinion, not 100% confident in their own faith.  Whatever that may be.

Comment

How do I know that he always was, which you say is an excuse? "Since nothing physical can be the reason for all things physical, that means something not physical was the cause." Matter is subject to physics. What is not? Only deity is not, and so, must be the reason. (What do you propose? Do you dare say that matter just appeared like magic in the beginning?) I am not saying it is science ( though science means knowledge and it is knowledge) since it can't be observed by us. It is logic that leads me to believe in a Creator.  And he had no beginning because HE DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE A BEGINNING SINCE HE IS NOT PHYSICAL. TIME IS PHYSICAL. Not that it can be touched, but that it is part of the natural. He is not subject to time. Time is his creation, in a way. It is hard to fathom but makes sense when you know the Creator is not limited by what he made. So, in conclusion, he "always was" because he is supreme over all, including time. It is valid not as a "scientific" explanation, but as the only reasonable explanation that does not contradict science.
Now let us see if you have an excuse to avoid answering this: what is your explanation for the origin of the universe? 
As for the Holy Spirit and the Bible's inspiration, I put in parenthesis: (I believe), and said why. 
You did not corner me.

Comment

Ben.... you tend to believe that Christianity is disproved because the Bible says we were made in his own image,  I'm not sure if you're trying to say that we changed from being primates (which we are 20,000,000 chromosomes different than them...Dna strand is about 2 billion chromosomes and we are 1 to 2% different, so we could 40,000,000 different)  Though proconsils and homidids are similar to homosapiens they are also equally dis-similar.  Or are you changing in some other manner, growing more arms or eyes or something. What change has taken place over the last 7000 years (your talking the time of the Egyptians,  exactly what changes are you talking about? Taller...your right, if a short person mates with a taller one they get taller kids .... that's hybriding not evolution, because they can be hybrided right back. you couldn't even cross a human with a neanderthal,either it wouldn't work or would be sterile just a fact of hybriding.  Nope...people are going to keep looking like humans unless and outside source gene splices them.  Gee what if evolution was God gene splicing till he got what he wanted.   If a bear evolved into a whale (darwin...Origins book) it's dna would be exactly the same (just read different) unless gene splicing took place, intelligently, so it could become what it wanted in 10,000 or a million years. Easier to back on land.

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?

For and Against Recent Activity

Latest Responses

Latest Comments

1 day ago

Yes the younger generation does know best. They are always paying the most attention to pop culture and important news. read more...

1 day ago

That is totally not true. Theater allows actors to become other people. read more...

1 day ago

No. That is not fair. People ride horses and that's not fair to make them victims for giving other people joy. read more...

1 day ago

Yes, It is so upbeat and catchy. I has a nice message to it as well read more...

1 day ago

McDonald's is a place for junk food. If you want healthy food, don't go to McDonald's. Some people are okay with eating unhealthy... read more...

Related Debates

	There Is No Such Thing As Centrifugal Force
	Are Jellyfish Living Things
	Cell Phone Signal Blocking Should Be Legal If Posted
	Aquinas' Philosophy Is Too Secular Or 'man-based' For It To Be 'Christian Ethics'.
	Darwin's Theory Of Evolution Is Outlandish
	Science Plays Against Religion!
	In The Future There Will Be Hover Cars And Other Technology They Say They May Have
	Intolerance To Ambiguity Has A Genetic Factor.
	Darwinists Must Have A Dim Outlook On The Future Of The Human Race.
	Sustainability Agents Should Practice What They Preach.

New Debates

	V-Chips?
	Should The Development Of New Technology Be Stopped?
	12+ Dating
	Flutes Are Better Than Clarinets
	Skittles Are Better Than Ring Pops
	Should Kids Be Able To Drive At 13
	Urgent Urgent Help Is Needed
	K2 Should Be Banned!!!!!!!
	Marriage Is Strictly Religious And Between A Man And Woman
	There Is No Fixed And/or Physical Center Of The Universe.