Question on Christianity

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

Originally posted by Wide When he tells you that Hydrogen Peroxide is 2 hydrogen atoms and two oxygen atoms, yes you believe him on faith, but the reason you believe him is because he is a scientist and probably doesn't create things out of thin air, and since he is not explaining a theory, it can be proven, these things can be proven, (electron microscope) God, simply cannot be. I'm not saying God doesn't exist, but science is testable, and God is not. So for now it is "The theory of creationism" and has yet to be proven. You really have to realize how weak this arguement is. Science is constantly redefining rules, finding out it has been wrong on theories that were assumed unfallible, etc. To say that all science is provable is as consistant as me saying God is provable. Your right creationism hasn't been proven and it is unlikely that it will be proven as 19th century conservative christianity has defined it. There are much more inteligent and Biblical ways to understand Gensis 1-11. Also realize that the big bang or evolution is far from being proven. There are gaps in evolutionary evidence, places where the theory just doesn't explain some things, and even the big bang is beginning to be re-understood as more of a wave theory of contraction and expansion of numerous universes.

Originally posted by Wide When he tells you that Hydrogen Peroxide is 2 hydrogen atoms and two oxygen atoms, yes you believe him on faith, but the reason you believe him is because he is a scientist and probably doesn't create things out of thin air, and since he is not explaining a theory, it can be proven, these things can be proven, (electron microscope) God, simply cannot be. I'm not saying God doesn't exist, but science is testable, and God is not. So for now it is "The theory of creationism" and has yet to be proven. You really have to realize how weak this arguement is. Science is constantly redefining rules, finding out it has been wrong on theories that were assumed unfallible, etc. To say that all science is provable is as consistant as me saying God is provable. Your right creationism hasn't been proven and it is unlikely that it will be proven as 19th century conservative christianity has defined it. There are much more inteligent and Biblical ways to understand Gensis 1-11. Also realize that the big bang or evolution is far from being proven. There are gaps in evolutionary evidence, places where the theory just doesn't explain some things, and even the big bang is beginning to be re-understood as more of a wave theory of contraction and expansion of numerous universes.

You don't study much do you?

Originally posted by mikeb23 I'll say this again and this about the 100th time I've said this since I've been on here. Whenever there is a religious thread the atheists are always the first ones to start the name calling and belittling. Religion comes from within. "Religion comes from within"? So, you were just wearing your diapers and sucking on a bottle of formulae and suddenly it hit you: There is a Trinity of three equals, one called the Holy Spirit, one an infinite all-powerful God who used to appear in Israel, and the other his son who appeared on Earth (having been born to a Virgin) but was crucified by Pontus Pilate but then reapeared to his friends before ascending to heaven? You got all that from "within"? Why, that is a miracle! YOU HEAR THAT BOLEX! PRAY TO MIKE23, for no normal lad could have attained such knowledge from within! You too, bow down Allah! For the great all-encompassing mind of the great MIKE23 knows ALL, from within! :bow1: :bow1: :bow1: :bow1: MIKE23 Sorry, I took flight of my senses there. Anyway, I wish I could prove you right about us atheists by being the first atheist in this thread to imply that you are a moron, but unfortunately I was away for a week so have to be the last to say it (depending on if you post in this thread again): You're a moron. Metal

Originally posted by Wide When he tells you that Hydrogen Peroxide is 2 hydrogen atoms and two oxygen atoms, yes you believe him on faith, but the reason you believe him is because he is a scientist and probably doesn't create things out of thin air, and since he is not explaining a theory, it can be proven, these things can be proven, (electron microscope) God, simply cannot be. I'm not saying God doesn't exist, but science is testable, and God is not. So for now it is "The theory of creationism" and has yet to be proven. Yeah I do have strong reasons to believe that he is telling me the truth. I think that his point was to show me that faith vs. belief isn't a black/white issue but a scale or range of evidences ... At the moment I'm taking his word for it ... and thats okay. God in the orthodox christian sense is not subject to "truth" or "falsehood" since both the true and the untrue depend on a body of evidence (from reality) for reference ... but I as our knowledge expands its possible that we could encompass a definition of god that does logically fit within our known reality. Originally posted by elijah_123 You really have to realize how weak this arguement is. Science is constantly redefining rules, finding out it has been wrong on theories that were assumed unfallible, etc. To say that all science is provable is as consistant as me saying God is provable. Your right creationism hasn't been proven and it is unlikely that it will be proven as 19th century conservative christianity has defined it. There are much more inteligent and Biblical ways to understand Gensis 1-11. Also realize that the big bang or evolution is far from being proven. There are gaps in evolutionary evidence, places where the theory just doesn't explain some things, and even the big bang is beginning to be re-understood as more of a wave theory of contraction and expansion of numerous universes. I don't understand the meaning behind your first paragraph. Its a pet peeve of mine when people suggest that evolution is far from being proven. Volumes of evidence support the process of evolution. Evolutions mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, recombination, & gene flow) are well documented. Of course gaps in the archeological puzzle have yet to be filled in ... we haven't uncovered every creature that has existed. Evolution is a proven process. Species evolve. Ignore it if you want. But it occurs. The area of concern is the driving force behind the mechanisms ... however chem/physics can provide explanations.

I don't understand the meaning behind your first paragraph. Its a pet peeve of mine when people suggest that evolution is far from being proven. Volumes of evidence support the process of evolution. Evolutions mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, recombination, & gene flow) are well documented. Of course gaps in the archeological puzzle have yet to be filled in ... we haven't uncovered every creature that has existed. Evolution is a proven process. Species evolve. Ignore it if you want. But it occurs. The area of concern is the driving force behind the mechanisms ... however chem/physics can provide explanations. I disagree. Any theory that has gaps in it, and parts of a process it simply can't expain is not proven. I admit evolution seems like a very strong arguement. I do argue with the theory stretching back to sea creatures coming onto dry land. The evidence for that simply isn't there. I also argue with the general principle of monkeys evolving into humans because they don't anymore. Why would a perfectly sensible and proven theory stop working. Did they tire of bettering themselves? On top of that there are gaps in evolutionary evidence. We can guess that certain families of creatures turned into others but there isn't proof. Even if you stand on it being proven you should admit that the process could be misunderstood. Shall I dig up past theories in science that have been disproved or re-understood later, even though at the time they were completely "proven". The church is one of the big cases of this. Anytime you have a bias in your search you are likely to find what you want. Science was ruled by the church from 1200 through the 1800s. During that time it was a well proven fact that the sun revolved around the earth. Now science is dominated by athiests/humanists. Do you think they are so perfect as to not read their ideas into results? You have faith in a explanation less than 300 years old I have faith in a system at least 5000 years old, neither of which has been proven or disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Originally posted by elijah_123 I disagree. Any theory that has gaps in it, and parts of a process it simply can't expain is not proven. I admit evolution seems like a very strong arguement. evolution as a process is a fact. humans evolving from other primates as a result of evolution is a theory. true, there are missing links but the theory of evolution is continuing to gain strength as more facts are revealed. Originally posted by elijah_123 I do argue with the theory stretching back to sea creatures coming onto dry land. there are many examples of fish who can live on land for periods of time. Originally posted by elijah_123 The evidence for that simply isn't there. I also argue with the general principle of monkeys evolving into humans because they don't anymore. Why would a perfectly sensible and proven theory stop working. Did they tire of bettering themselves? you don't understand evolution. one species does not have to evolve into only one new species. one species may evolve into dozens of different species. people could very well have a common ancestor with chimps and gorillas. evolution is like a tree. one species can branch into many very different species. Originally posted by elijah_123 On top of that there are gaps in evolutionary evidence. We can guess that certain families of creatures turned into others but there isn't proof. Even if you stand on it being proven you should admit that the process could be misunderstood. Shall I dig up past theories in science that have been disproved or re-understood later, even though at the time they were completely "proven". The church is one of the big cases of this. Anytime you have a bias in your search you are likely to find what you want. Science was ruled by the church from 1200 through the 1800s. During that time it was a well proven fact that the sun revolved around the earth. Now science is dominated by athiests/humanists. Do you think they are so perfect as to not read their ideas into results? theories are not proven...you said that yourself. dig up some examples of scientific facts that were disproven later on. make sure these examples are recent as you yourself admitted science was controlled by the church until recently. why is science always being compared to religion by theists?? they are more fundamentally different than night and day. the basis of religion is faith. the basis of science is fact. where is the similarity??? Originally posted by elijah_123 You have faith in a explanation less than 300 years old I have faith in a system at least 5000 years old, neither of which has been proven or disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt. the idea that the world is flat is much older than the idea that it is round but i'm going to believe the newer one.

Satan, what do you know about religions other than christianity, like hinduism or buddhism?

For those of you still duped by Creationism, consider the example of the whale: 1. Whales are mammals and evolved from creatures rather similar to bears that took to the water (a similar evolutionary process is now being followed by seals and manatees). In their bone structure, they still show skeletal feet, which have now been absorbed into their bodies. Does it make any sense that an "architect" or "Creator" would implant residual feet, used for nothing at all, into the body of a sea creature? They perform no function whatsoever. Evolution works with the tools it is given, so has to make imperfect and gradual alterations to what is already there. Creation by a perfect deity would not. 2. Whales, because they evolved from mammals, must surface to breath. This is not an advantageous situation, for whales and dolphins can (and do) drown just as humans do. Yet evolution MUST WORK WITH THE IMPERFECT TOOLS IT IS GIVEN. Again, creation by a deity would not design a creature in this way. 3. The evolution of whales into their present form is quite clear in the fossil record. There aren't so-called "gaps". I have read comments on this board from Creationists (lets be honest, these people are mostly merely religious, and not in search of scientific fact) who seem to believe that evolution is heading somewhere. It is apparent in comments such as "If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are their still monkeys?". Such comments show both factual and logical misunderstanding. Firstly, you surely have been born from your father, but as far as I know there is no hard and fast rule that he must immediately die. Secondly, evolution doesn't say humans evolved from monkeys. It says that we share a common ancestory. Lastly, there is the teleological assumption, inherent to religion, that IS NOT SHARED BY SCIENCE, that evolution has some kind of direction, moving towards eventual perfection. I got news, we aren't really going anywhere in particular. It is only if you fool yourself that somehow our present form is optimum or near optimum that such a misunderstanding can occur. Nature is no more impressed with humans than it is with monkeys...or with slime mold for that matter. Metal

Faith is not a subsitute for knowledge...

Originally posted by metal machine For those of you still duped by Creationism, consider the example of the whale: 1. Whales are mammals and evolved from creatures rather similar to bears that took to the water (a similar evolutionary process is now being followed by seals and manatees). In their bone structure, they still show skeletal feet, which have now been absorbed into their bodies. Does it make any sense that an "architect" or "Creator" would implant residual feet, used for nothing at all, into the body of a sea creature? They perform no function whatsoever. Evolution works with the tools it is given, so has to make imperfect and gradual alterations to what is already there. Creation by a perfect deity would not. 2. Whales, because they evolved from mammals, must surface to breath. This is not an advantageous situation, for whales and dolphins can (and do) drown just as humans do. Yet evolution MUST WORK WITH THE IMPERFECT TOOLS IT IS GIVEN. Again, creation by a deity would not design a creature in this way. 3. The evolution of whales into their present form is quite clear in the fossil record. There aren't so-called "gaps". I have read comments on this board from Creationists (lets be honest, these people are mostly merely religious, and not in search of scientific fact) who seem to believe that evolution is heading somewhere. It is apparent in comments such as "If humans evolved from monkeys, then why are their still monkeys?". Such comments show both factual and logical misunderstanding. Firstly, you surely have been born from your father, but as far as I know there is no hard and fast rule that he must immediately die. Secondly, evolution doesn't say humans evolved from monkeys. It says that we share a common ancestory. Lastly, there is the teleological assumption, inherent to religion, that IS NOT SHARED BY SCIENCE, that evolution has some kind of direction, moving towards eventual perfection. I got news, we aren't really going anywhere in particular. It is only if you fool yourself that somehow our present form is optimum or near optimum that such a misunderstanding can occur. Nature is no more impressed with humans than it is with monkeys...or with slime mold for that matter. Metal I'll play devil's advocate and present an argument: Let's consider the utility of the human hand, replete with thumb. In its current form, the human hand has great utility. From a Darwinian perspective, humans have hands with 5 digits because humans "needed" such a hand. This begs the question: A human hand that took millions of years to develop would be "inutile" during that period of development. If the hand developed out of evolutionary "need" how did men endure without the 5 digit hand that they"needed" during the millions of years in which it had not yet fully developed?

Originally posted by durakelt1 Satan, what do you know about religions other than christianity, like hinduism or buddhism? not really that much. i know that buddhism branched off from hinduism and that both religions believe in reincarnation. i'll probably get myself better acquainted with both at some point in the future. i actually find buddhism interesting.

Originally posted by Walter E Kurtz I'll play devil's advocate and present an argument: Let's consider the utility of the human hand, replete with thumb. In its current form, the human hand has great utility. From a Darwinian perspective, humans have hands with 5 digits because humans "needed" such a hand. This begs the question: A human hand that took millions of years to develop would be "inutile" during that period of development. If the hand developed out of evolutionary "need" how did men endure without the 5 digit hand that they"needed" during the millions of years in which it had not yet fully developed? the 5 digit hand evolved before man did.

Originally posted by elijah_123 I disagree. Any theory that has gaps in it, and parts of a process it simply can't expain is not proven. I admit evolution seems like a very strong arguement. I do argue with the theory stretching back to sea creatures coming onto dry land. The evidence for that simply isn't there. I also argue with the general principle of monkeys evolving into humans because they don't anymore. Why would a perfectly sensible and proven theory stop working. Did they tire of bettering themselves? On top of that there are gaps in evolutionary evidence. We can guess that certain families of creatures turned into others but there isn't proof. Even if you stand on it being proven you should admit that the process could be misunderstood. Shall I dig up past theories in science that have been disproved or re-understood later, even though at the time they were completely "proven". The church is one of the big cases of this. Anytime you have a bias in your search you are likely to find what you want. Science was ruled by the church from 1200 through the 1800s. During that time it was a well proven fact that the sun revolved around the earth. Now science is dominated by athiests/humanists. Do you think they are so perfect as to not read their ideas into results? You have faith in a explanation less than 300 years old I have faith in a system at least 5000 years old, neither of which has been proven or disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt. A theory is simply a model that helps us understand phenomena; it’s analogous to a road map that helps you understand how to navigate. In chemistry you can understand the atomic world through many models. In physics you can understand the world around us through different perspectives (Newtonian vs. quantum). Just because a model does not answer all questions does not mean that it’s invalid. I mean even if we did find a “theory of everything” it wouldn’t help us understand why Madonna is on the cover of Vogue magazine (to use Stephen Hawkings argument from his black hole book). However that’s an interesting argument coming from a theist who has not a single thread of evidence supporting his 5000 year old idea of creationism. The very idea of evidence in support of a supernatural creator is contradictory. Second, sure as we understand our reality further we are constantly refining our ideas. So? That makes our scientific method invalid? I would think that’s an argument in favor of atheism myself. I would suggest you take a serious look at evolution from an objective perspective ... the majority of theists that I have met read books about evolution written by other theists who don't understand evolution ... pick up a college textbook on biology or something ... I can provide references if you are interested in learning ... otherwise I'm not going to spend a lot of time debating/educating you about this.