Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] No creation can ever be superior to its creator

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,038.00
Goal
$1,038.00
ThinkerMan said:
But evolutuonsists maintain that evolution is based on survival of the fittest. So again, why haven't human beings bred a species as different from humans as humans are from the primates they supposedly came from? Some apes and some dogs are better than other apes & dogs, but that hasn't changed their species.

That's like me giving you one acorn and asking your to grow a thousand oak trees in a week. It doesn't mean you can't, it just means you can't do it right away.

You are ignoring the time factor. We have only been domesticating animals and plants for a little over 10,000 years.

Humans evolved over millions of years. We have been studying evolution for about 200. What you ask isn't reasonable, nor is it a claim of evolution.

[quote:8f3dd]It's still just a "what if". That's like me saying that humans will turn into goats someday because I say so. It's tantamount to saying that there is no proof but there might be someday.

Evolution, and I daresay any scientists, have anything to say about how things WILL evolve. Rather, they only look backwards to explain how things HAVE evolved. A major difference.

That is why domestication is such a messy business, with many failed attempts and it takes a great number of generations to even make a dent.

Again, evolution is, always has been, and always will be, a theory.

Bravo. You are correct. Of course you realize that "theory" is not a bad word, right?

And the theory came about only to say there is no God.

Opinion

If all people believed that God created humans in his image and animals separately, there would be no theory of evolution.

Tell that to all the Christians on this forum who accept the theory.

But as usual, man thinks he knows better than God so he tries to decide how we all got here.

Not decide, but determine.

The only problem is the fallibility of man always shows up when he disagrees with God.

Then you are fallible as well.

The evolution theory brings up more questions than answers because the "answers" cannot be found in reality, only in the imagination.

There are mountains of real evidence. I could link thousands of pages if you choose to read them and could comprehend the science, math and reason behind them.

What can be found in reality and always has been in reality is that each animal reproduces his own kind.

There are many instances of new species being created over the course of multiple generations. You choose to ignore them because the are plants and little bugs. Not too "sexy", as they say.

Large mammals reproduce much too slow for us to readily witness speciation, particularly since we have only been looking for it for a few hundred years. As I said with the acorns, you need many generations and time. Plants and bugs are quick, chimpanzees and humans are slow.

But apparently you want new mammal species as proof. Unless you are Methusaleh, you ain't getting it.

There is no superhuman race and there are no apes or primates that breed human beings.

Not sure where you got superhuman.

I have an excellent example of primates breeding humans. My parents are primates. They had me, also a primate and a human being.[/quote:8f3dd]

So what you're saying, is that there is no proof for evolution but there will be. Is that correct? And in 5, 000 years from now (provided humans live that long), and no evidence of superior species develop, you'll still be saying; "Give it time?" Sorry, but again, the truth can only be found in reality, not in the imagination. By your reasoning anything can be proven because it will be proven tomorrow. And you say you need evidence for your beliefs? :o That sure hasn't been shown to be true.

Superior species comes from the survival of the fittest theory. According to evolutionists we develpoed from lower primates. So again, if species evolve, then why haven't humans produced species as superior to us as we are to lower primates?

So you're saying that humans come from humans. Is that correct? if so, I'll buy that. Reality backs that up.
 
So what you're saying, is that there is no proof for evolution but there will be. Is that correct? And in 5, 000 years from now (provided humans live that long), and no evidence of superior species develop, you'll still be saying; "Give it time?" Sorry, but again, the truth can only be found in reality, not in the imagination. By your reasoning anything can be proven because it will be proven tomorrow. And you say you need evidence for your beliefs? That sure hasn't been shown to be true.

Superior species comes from the survival of the fittest theory. According to evolutionists we develpoed from lower primates. So again, if species evolve, then why haven't humans produced species as superior to us as we are to lower primates?

So you're saying that humans come from humans. Is that correct? if so, I'll buy that. Reality backs that up.

Yup. You'll have to wait. Sorry. Humans simply reproduce at a painfully slow rate. But we don't need to prove that humans can evolve into a new species in order to prove the TOE. The TOE applies to all life....millions of species...not just humans.

There is much evidence and example for speciation, and speciation is a product of the TOE.

However, either you don't know, don't understand, or don't recognize those examples because they don't involve humans. Given that we are one of only millions of species on earth, that's an unfortunate viewpoint if you are trying to explain the diversity of biology, which the TOE does.

Also, humans, in general, are not longer subject to "natural selection" in its purest form. If it gets colder, we can build house. If we run out of food, we can fly it in from across the globe. Also, there is no geographical seperation anymore, in general, of subsets of human beings.

So no, we likely will not see another species evolve from humans, because we no longer present the circumstances to ourselves that lead to further evolution. We have "artificial selection", or probably better put, "artificial nonselection".

However, we did see the beginnings of nature attempting to do so, as is evident through the divergent evolution that caused different races of humans over the last 100,000 years.

You are asking us to prove evolution by creating a new species from humans. You ignore every other species on earth, and demand new humans.

Why do you need to see a non-human evolve over time from a human in order to prove a TOE that applies to all animals? Why isn't seeing a new plant species evolve from an old plant species enough to show that speciation can occur?
 
Sorry, but your arguments show no proof for evolution. They are, as you agree, only theories.

And as for me being fallible, I also have the infallible Holy Spirit inside me in addition to my fallible human mind. I have also been both with & without the Holy Spirit so I've been where you are but you've never been where I am. Therefore, I have the perspective of more than one side of the coin. You do not. You're still stuck where I used to be. ;-)

And anyone who claims to be a Christian but does not believe that God created man the way he said he did is a house divided against itself. He either believes the bible is the word of God or he doesn't. If he doesn't, then he can't completely believe Jesus either.
 
twist

Heidi said:
The evidence that there is a God is inherent in every natural creation, especially in the human being...unless of course you don't value yourself as anything more than an accident or mutation.
Your very explanation confirms that your beliefs are of man and not of evidence of a God.


Even one cell whose design is so miraculous that scientists are still trying to figure out how it works. And the very fact that they are looking for an order to it shows they know there's a design or they wouldn't be looking for one! The beauty of one flower who miraculously grows with only food and water into a thing of majesty that can't be duplicated by any human being shows the presence of God.
The confirmation of our lack answers is not evidence of a God. It only means there are answers waiting to be found. The fact we value the complexitiy and are in awe of the beauty of things is only a value that man has and as such is a definition by man and again is not evidence of a God.



Romans 1:18, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godless and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
Pulling out verse does not help prove your cause.

The evidence of God is all around us. But those who have contempt for his creation try to reduce it into a petrie dish which only bring about more unanswered questions than solutions. God & life are much bigger than we are which is why bacterial cells will eventually become resistant to any medicines and new "solutions" bring on bigger problems.
There is no evidence of God. THere is evidence of us and our surroundings and not knowing how we got here is not evidence that God must have done it.

It is man's arrogance thinking he can solve his own problems which si why we are closer to annihilating ourselves than we ever have been.
Where have you ever seen God enter a court of law?


There is still disease, STD's are reaching pandemic porportions, we have weapons that can wipe out more people in less time than ever before, more children who commit murder than ever before, too many people on the planet which necessitates arbitrary baby-killing through abortion, people living longer through "medical technology" which increases health care costs to insurmountable prices, & produces euthanasia.
THere has always been disease and man has always sought bigger and better weapons even in the "bible days". So God if he exists has not done anything to curb mans appetite for such things. Too many people on the planet? Who says" You? To much medical break throughs for you? You talk through two sides of your mouth when you complain about prolonging peoples lives through medical advances and then in the same breath complain about euthanasia which has not and never will become the practice you fear. Some people would rather not prolong the inevitable while in pain. The state will never reach the point of forced euthanasia because the state is composed of people who will experience it.

Sorry, but men, left to themselves, make a mess of things to the point of self-destruction.
Well man has been left to himself all along unless you can show where God has ever intervened. Hammuabis code was in effect long before the bible and Moses ten commandments.


But you can continue to believe that man knows better than God. God has warned us repeatedly what will happen if we do things our way, but most don't listen to Him. So he says, "Okay have it your way. Since you don't listen to me, you'll have to find out the hard way that you did not creae the universe and only I know how things should work."
It's a hollow warning since you can't show where "listening" to God has produced a different outcome for anything. Its a lot like prayer. You have three possibilities, yes , no , or not now but whatever the outcome its always GOds will. Talk about stacking the deck.

As God tells us in Romans 1:21-

"For although the knew God, they neither gloridied him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

And?
Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurities resulting in the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and receieved in themselves due penalty for their perversion.
Which was?
Further more, since they did not think it worhtwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice. They are gosspis, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; the invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents, they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
Sorry but no society has ever flourished that embraced these traits and I can't think of any society that embraces them today with or without a God. So the destruction of the society is not of God but simply the fact that these ideals don't lead to a prosperous society.

That sure sounds like today's society! God-haters and arrogant men who claim to be wise. Well, I got news for you, there is a Creator who determines the weather and our fate. Unfortunately, some people are so arrogant, have to wait until they die to find out just who their Creator is.
Again hollow claims. There is no evidence of a creator or at least one who gets involved in mans affairs. Claiming to have knowledge of the here after is again a hollow claim since no one has ever come back to confirm the claims. If there is a creator he is not going to care what we learned in science class or what we believed about evolution.

Pride & arrogance is what keeps men from seeing the existence of God around them every single day. ;-)
No I think it is the lack of evidence that a God exists that keeps man from seeing any evidence of a God.
 
You can no more convince an atheist that there is a God than you can convince a blind man to see. 8-) But unfortunately, an atheist's eyes will be opened when he dies. And that is a guarantee. But they can't say they haven't been warned.
 
Then again, is it a blind man's fault that he is blind? Would it be just to punish him for being blind?

Besides, evolution=/=atheism
 
Hominims?

Hominins. Manlike animals excluding pongids.

It sounds like a sci-fi movie. Now it is you who are trying to have a little fun with me.

You're seeing a lot of science for the first time. Don't let it intimidate you.

Scientists find rocks and splinters in the desert they can't explain and develop an elaborate story about them that of course, everyone buys.

You've been misled.

I have seen "documentaries" on these made-up creatures & how do scientists know they had hair all over their bodies? Just a guess?

Inference based on evidence. Mammals, including all primates, have hairy bodies. Most of us have body hair that is too fine to see easily, but it's still there.

And why have today's apes not shed their hair or developed into human species today? [quote:18747]

Apes adapted to different envirionments, where that wouldn't have been very useful to them.

[quote:18747]Why haven't dogs dropped their hair and developed into new species?

Some dogs have lost their hair. And even creationists admit that dogs evolved from wolves.

Why do humans breed babies with defects?

Mutation and recombination.

How are those defective babies fitter than any other huamn whoever lived?

Only a few babies are actually more fit for having a mutation. Most of us have a few mutations. The vast majority of them don't do much of anything. A few are harmful, and a very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out, although humans do their best to thwart that process for our own species.

How are any of us fitter?

A few humans are now totally immune to HIV induced AIDS. A few have a new mutation that greatly reduces the likelihood of arteriosclerosis.

Things like that.

We certainly don't have the capacity to fend for ourselves in the desert without cell phones, nor can most of us chop down trees without dropping dead from a heart attack.

Speak for yourself.

Why haven't we produced a species that are as different from us as we are from apes or "hominims"?

We have. You're the latest model. Humans looked a lot different in the past.

Once again, a man looked at an ape and saw he looked more like a human than other animals so he concluded that we must have come from him in some fashion.

That would be wrong. Fortunately, that's not what evoutionary theory says. Although... creationist Carolus Linnaeus, who invented the system used for naming organisms, admitted that he could find no character by which he could exclude humans from the same genus as apes.

In addition, the bible said there were giants who once roamed the earth just like Andre the Giant. So how do scientists know the bones they find are not those of this tribe?
[/quote:18747][/quote:18747]

They were smaller than we are, not larger, almost all of them. And I don't think they wore those funny little tights, either. :lol:
 
jwu said:
Then again, is it a blind man's fault that he is blind? Would it be just to punish him for being blind?

Besides, evolution=/=atheism

If he's told what he has to do to be able to see, but does not do it, yes, it is his fault. ;-)
 
Heidi said:
You can no more convince an atheist that there is a God than you can convince a blind man to see. 8-) But unfortunately, an atheist's eyes will be opened when he dies. And that is a guarantee. But they can't say they haven't been warned.

It is very easy to convince an atheist there is a God. Just show some reliable evidence . The lack of an answer to the questions of our surroundings does not mean that God exists.It means we have much work to do. As I said many times when I die and if there is a God he is not going to judge me based on what I believe or what I concluded to be the truth based on the evidence in front of me. Believing without evidence is called gullible. I don't think God wants his creatures to exhibit such traits.
 
reznwerks said:
Heidi said:
You can no more convince an atheist that there is a God than you can convince a blind man to see. 8-) But unfortunately, an atheist's eyes will be opened when he dies. And that is a guarantee. But they can't say they haven't been warned.

It is very easy to convince an atheist there is a God. Just show some reliable evidence . The lack of an answer to the questions of our surroundings does not mean that God exists.It means we have much work to do. As I said many times when I die and if there is a God he is not going to judge me based on what I believe or what I concluded to be the truth based on the evidence in front of me. Believing without evidence is called gullible. I don't think God wants his creatures to exhibit such traits.

Again, the evidence is in the bible, Christ's miracles, which not even the Jews or the Romans denied, but people today do even though they weren't there. There is actually 300 times more evidence that Jesus lived & died for our sins than Caesar ived. We have many more of Christ's words to read today than we have of Caesar's. Nobody asks; "How do you know that's what Caesar said"? They just accept that the quotes attributed to Caesar's are his.

God's existence is also plain through his miraculous creation around us whcih scientists still don't undertand after thousands of years! Scientists are still trying to understand the cell, much less where thunder comes from, or tornadoes, & when they will happen. There are immense laboratories set up trying to understand fusion and molecular construction and adhesion. Neverthelss, these properties have existed since the beginning of time. You can't see the wind, but do you deny it's there? :o

So evidence? There's tons of evidence that only blind men can't see, my friend. ;-) I haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg.
 
bible

Heidi said:
reznwerks said:
Heidi said:
You can no more convince an atheist that there is a God than you can convince a blind man to see. 8-) But unfortunately, an atheist's eyes will be opened when he dies. And that is a guarantee. But they can't say they haven't been warned.

It is very easy to convince an atheist there is a God. Just show some reliable evidence . The lack of an answer to the questions of our surroundings does not mean that God exists.It means we have much work to do. As I said many times when I die and if there is a God he is not going to judge me based on what I believe or what I concluded to be the truth based on the evidence in front of me. Believing without evidence is called gullible. I don't think God wants his creatures to exhibit such traits.

Again, the evidence is in the bible, Christ's miracles, which not even the Jews or the Romans denied, but people today do even though they weren't there.
Again, the bible is not a textbook. No one outside the bible testifies to the reality of Jesus, the miracles, no records exist of the trial , the crucifixion, the earthquake, the eclipse, and just about any other fantastic claim made. There is silence where there should be loud noise.

There is actually 300 times more evidence that Jesus lived & died for our sins than Caesar ived.
No there is not. You cannot give one example of first hand evidence that Jesus ever lived. First hand evidence is defined as reliable testimony during the supposed time of Jesus. I will save you time and tell you that the best evidence you could have had was Josephus and his testimony is regarded as a forgery by both Christian and non Christian scholars.

We have many more of Christ's words to read today than we have of Caesar's. Nobody asks; "How do you know that's what Caesar said"? They just accept that the quotes attributed to Caesar's are his.
Jesus (if he existed) never wrote one thing down. It is hard to imagine his apostles going around with pen and pencil in hand following Jesus and recording his "notable " quotes like presidential biographers do today.

God's existence is also plain through his miraculous creation around us whcih scientists still don't undertand after thousands of years! Scientists are still trying to understand the cell, much less where thunder comes from, or tornadoes, & when they will happen. There are immense laboratories set up trying to understand fusion and molecular construction and adhesion. Neverthelss, these properties have existed since the beginning of time. You can't see the wind, but do you deny it's there? :o

As I said before not knowing all the answers is not evidence of a God. It just means we have something to work on.

So evidence? There's tons of evidence that only blind men can't see, my friend. ;-) I haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg.
You haven't touched on anything. You implore us to believe in the 'God of the gaps" which means if you don't have an answer then God must be the answer. Sorry but it may be easy to do but intellectually dishonest.
 
Hello reznwerks:

I agree that there is a lot of embarassing and downright silly stuff being put forward in "defence" of the hypothesis that God is involved in the whole matter of origins.

However, I do think everyone needs to realize that the "God of the Gaps" (GOG) argument, while intellectually dishonest as you point out, is not the only game in town re "finding a place" for God in the whole origins question.

People who use the GOG argument often believe that when a process "x" is mysterious, in the sense of not having a naturalistic explanation based on physical law, that this is justification for inserting God as an explanation as to how the process actually produces whatever result it produces. I don't think this is philosophically justifiable. The flip side is that when a "natural-law-based" explanation is finally found for "x", this is seen as evidence against God's role in nature.

However, I think there is a "category" error in all this. Stated loosely, the GOG argument mistakenly targets "how" mysteries when a better target would be "why" mysteries. What I mean by a "why" mystery is probably unclear. For the present, I would say the real place where God can be legitimately inserted into the origins question is in response to questions like "Why do the laws of physics assume the form that they do?" and "Why are the initial conditions of the universe what they are?. I am not saying that it is obvious that God is the best answer to these questions (and I am not unaware of the philosophical challenges of "inserting" God into the universe - such as explaining where God "comes from").

Nevertheless, I am saying that there are those of us Christians who are not all surprised that some law-governed mechanism (even if it probabilistic as per quantum mechanics) can be associated with all phenomena in the universe. To those of us who believe in God, such explanations simply answer the question of how God does what He does.

Now the fact that a model of the physical world might not need God in order to be complete and useful really does not mean that He is not real and is in some way the creative force behind our law-governed universe. In this regard, I do not think the Occam principle can be legitimately applied - one cannot legitimately say that just because we can explain all physical (and even non-physical) phenomena without invoking God, that this somehow lessens the force of the argument for the existence of God. I can try defend what I have just said in another post if anyone is interested.
 
deist

Drew said:
Hello reznwerks:

I agree that there is a lot of embarassing and downright silly stuff being put forward in "defence" of the hypothesis that God is involved in the whole matter of origins.

However, I do think everyone needs to realize that the "God of the Gaps" (GOG) argument, while intellectually dishonest as you point out, is not the only game in town re "finding a place" for God in the whole origins question.

People who use the GOG argument often believe that when a process "x" is mysterious, in the sense of not having a naturalistic explanation based on physical law, that this is justification for inserting God as an explanation as to how the process actually produces whatever result it produces. I don't think this is philosophically justifiable. The flip side is that when a "natural-law-based" explanation is finally found for "x", this is seen as evidence against God's role in nature.

However, I think there is a "category" error in all this. Stated loosely, the GOG argument mistakenly targets "how" mysteries when a better target would be "why" mysteries. What I mean by a "why" mystery is probably unclear. For the present, I would say the real place where God can be legitimately inserted into the origins question is in response to questions like "Why do the laws of physics assume the form that they do?" and "Why are the initial conditions of the universe what they are?. I am not saying that it is obvious that God is the best answer to these questions (and I am not unaware of the philosophical challenges of "inserting" God into the universe - such as explaining where God "comes from").

Nevertheless, I am saying that there are those of us Christians who are not all surprised that some law-governed mechanism (even if it probabilistic as per quantum mechanics) can be associated with all phenomena in the universe. To those of us who believe in God, such explanations simply answer the question of how God does what He does.

Now the fact that a model of the physical world might not need God in order to be complete and useful really does not mean that He is not real and is in some way the creative force behind our law-governed universe. In this regard, I do not think the Occam principle can be legitimately applied - one cannot legitimately say that just because we can explain all physical (and even non-physical) phenomena without invoking God, that this somehow lessens the force of the argument for the existence of God. I can try defend what I have just said in another post if anyone is interested.
Spoken like a true Deist. Assuming we accept your premise and allow the possibility of a "God" who is in back of the organizing etc is it still rational to believe that this is the same God of the bible? Is it still rational then to believe that this God really gets involved in mans petty affairs? I think not.
 
Re: deist

reznwerks said:
Spoken like a true Deist. Assuming we accept your premise and allow the possibility of a "God" who is in back of the organizing etc is it still rational to believe that this is the same God of the bible? Is it still rational then to believe that this God really gets involved in mans petty affairs? I think not.

I am not exactly sure what a Deist is. But whatever the term actually means, I may or may not fit the definition. I kind of doubt it though, since I think I have heard that Deists believe God "walked away" after his creation of the Universe,

But definitions are not all that interesting to me. I think that whatever others may think, it is entirely reasonable that a personal God, one that gets involved in the lives of human beings, could also be the agent that "rigged" the initial conditions of the universe.

It is perhaps convenient to those who argue against the existence of a personal God in general or the Christian God in particular, that there is so much mumbo-jumbo from Christians in these threads. The fact that so many Christians have trouble thinking clearly about these matters does not mean that there is no legitimate case for the Christian God.

In short, I see no philosophical problem with the idea that God could be involved in both the origin of the physical universe and in the lives of people. Such a general topic is rich with possibilities for discussion. I am sure that you are reasonable enough to realize that the simple statement "I think not" does not really answer the mail re making your case that a personal God is not involved in the affairs of men. On the other hand, those of us who believe otherwise have some challenges to face as well.
 
Well I got news for you, Drew, it doesn't matter what people discuss. The only thing that matters is what's tue, my friend. That's the bottom line. There either is a God or there isn't. If there is no God, then Christians have lost nothing. We will all have the same fate. But if there is a God, then atheists have lost everything. And that is what it all boils down to. ;-)
 
Heidi said:
Well I got news for you, Drew, it doesn't matter what people discuss. The only thing that matters is what's tue, my friend. That's the bottom line. There either is a God or there isn't. If there is no God, then Christians have lost nothing. We will all have the same fate. But if there is a God, then atheists have lost everything. And that is what it all boils down to. ;-)
Since yhwh is a kind and loving god who throws you into a pit of eternal pain and suffering if you don't join his fan club.
 
SyntaxVorlon said:
Heidi said:
Well I got news for you, Drew, it doesn't matter what people discuss. The only thing that matters is what's tue, my friend. That's the bottom line. There either is a God or there isn't. If there is no God, then Christians have lost nothing. We will all have the same fate. But if there is a God, then atheists have lost everything. And that is what it all boils down to. ;-)
Since yhwh is a kind and loving god who throws you into a pit of eternal pain and suffering if you don't join his fan club.

Sorry, but it isn't God who rejects us. It's people who reject God. You have been told many times what will happen to you if you defy God yet you deliberately and willfully think you know better than he does. What do you think would happen to you if you defied your superior in the army, or your boss? What do you think would happen to you if you crashed your car into a bridge? Do you deliberately crash your car into a bridge because you're angry that you will die? :o Or do you heed the warnings of those who tell you what will happen if you do? Again, even animals know not to bite the hand that feeds them!

But even though bosses & army personnel won't forgive your mistakes, God always will and you can have the glories of heaven. All you have to do is admit your mistakes & and ask him to forgive you! That's all! He will forgive anything! Turning Him down is like turning down a free pardon! Anyone who does that prefers hell over heaven. He has chosen his own fate, my friend. And to make matters worse, he then complains about his choice! Go figure. :roll:
 
Hello Heidi:

It seems to me that you and some other defenders of the Christian faith want to be able to just "claim" that, for example, ordered structures must have been designed. If we want to be taken seriously, we need to get down into the challenging muck and mire of legitimate case-making - you cannot just claim the truth of a certain hypothesis. For example, in the case of evolution you need to be very specific about exactly what it is about the complexity of a bioligical entity that guarantees (or strongly favours) the necessity of design.
 
Actually, it's the exact opposite, Drew. I have shown that there is a design by cell structure, the structure of the human being down to the smallest gene. Everything in the world is based on cause-effect, & scientists are the first ones to admit that. If everything is random, then predicting anything or analyzing anything is a complete waste of time. It is you, who are siimply claiming there is no desgin simply because you don't want to admit there is a designer. Your claims are contradict every scientific theory, including how electricity works, relativity, mathematical formulas, ansd logic itself. Logic & chaos are mutally exclusive.
 
Back
Top