Forums → WEPR → [nec]Christianity vs Atheism

I'm sick of this thread. There are some atheist guys who come constantly to the thread, and a few cristian guys who make 10 posts max and then leave because there are so many atheists responding to hisreply. It follows that pattern for 250 freaking pages.

Alright, I'll just say this, then I'm out. (I think)=P
Evolution used to be a theory, but was rapidly accepted as definite truth somewhere along the way. I have no problem with this, so long as the theory has plenty of verification.
1. Seeing as the theory of Evolution requires massive amounts of time in the earth's past in order to be possible, it relies on the geological veiwpoint, Uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism beliefs state that the earth's geological and fossil records were the results of slow natural processes over vast amounts of time. They say that strata is created by the slow swell and receding of the oceans over time (1,000,000s of years or more). Now, several tree trunks have been found preserved, running vertically across several layers of strata. There is no way a tree could stand the test of 1,000,000's (or more) years of weather, especially considering the fact that water was supposedly covering and uncovering the area... This suggests that these layers were formed much (much) more rapidly than previously thought. Evidence like this is hard to explain away from the Uniformitarianist view point.
2. The standpoint of evolution is based off of Darwin's writings, and ideas (as hopefully, just about everyone knows). And Darwin realized and admitted that if no "missing links" were found, his theory was improbable at best. And now, years later, with the field of geology more advanced than ever, other than several hoaxes and a few cases of mistaken identity, no "links" have been found. It would seem that we would not only find fossilized fish and amphibians, but fossilized hybrids, assuming macro evolution happens. Rather, we find large numbers of fossilized fish, some fossilized amphibians, and nothing in between.
3. And finally, I definitely cannot 'rove' Christianity to you. After all, you could never argue someone into being a Christian. But I can say this. Christians and Jews have been talking about a "Great Flood" for thousands of years. And now, the geological records point to a huge catastrophe (Cumberland Bonecaves, anyone?) that rapidly shaped much of our geological records. Old Testament prophecies specifically described the fate of the city of Tyre. Recently, a (atheist) historian admitted that the predictions were spot on. Alexander the Great's invading armies did to Tyre exactly what the prophets said would be done years before. And if you really think it was all a conspiracy, that the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation was all made up by some unknown group of people who got together, wrote a story that spanned thousands of years, full of true historical facts that have been verified by archeology, then somehow distributed it to a massive range of people, without anyone realizing it was a hoax, then I pity you. I really do, because that theory doesn't have a shred of evidence. Thousands of copies of New Testament books, some of them complete, have been found dating back to within a generation of the dates of authorship. To give you some context, other works written around the same time period, such as Plato's Republic have only a handful of copies, dated a hundred years or more after the date of authorship. In fact, if you go by this standard, the New Testament is the most historically solid work of its time.
Now, I don't expect to have converted you or anything. But I hope to at least stop some of the people with the one mind set I can't stand: those who say that 100% of the evidence points to evolution, while absolutely none supports Christianity and the intelligent design it entails. To think that, you'd have to be even more oblivious or in denial than the supposed people you criticize.

@HahiHa
I know you said this two pages back, but I just want to clear things up. You mentioned the butterflies in England. This is a great piece of evidence for micro evolution. But has little weight in an argument about macro evolution. I hope you know there's a difference.

2. The standpoint of evolution is based off of Darwin's writings, and ideas (as hopefully, just about everyone knows). And Darwin realized and admitted that if no "missing links" were found, his theory was improbable at best. And now, years later, with the field of geology more advanced than ever, other than several hoaxes and a few cases of mistaken identity, no "links" have been found. It would seem that we would not only find fossilized fish and amphibians, but fossilized hybrids, assuming macro evolution happens. Rather, we find large numbers of fossilized fish, some fossilized amphibians, and nothing in between.

And finally, I definitely cannot 'rove' Christianity to you. After all, you could never argue someone into being a Christian.

But I can say this. Christians and Jews have been talking about a "Great Flood" for thousands of years. And now, the geological records point to a huge catastrophe (Cumberland Bonecaves, anyone?) that rapidly shaped much of our geological records.

Old Testament prophecies specifically described the fate of the city of Tyre. Recently, a (atheist) historian admitted that the predictions were spot on

Now, I don't expect to have converted you or anything. But I hope to at least stop some of the people with the one mind set I can't stand: those who say that 100% of the evidence points to evolution, while absolutely none supports Christianity and the intelligent design it entails. To think that, you'd have to be even more oblivious or in denial than the supposed people you criticize.

The Cumberland Bonecaves are most well known of a series of caves filled with fossils. Nothing to controversial, until paleontologists started looking at the fossils. Species from all over the world, the majority of which were recognized as having never been inhabiting similar regions of the world. I'll get back to you with a link.
Also, about the prophecy, neither of your explanations works. First you say it might have been self fulfilling. That couldn't have happened, considering the fact that Alexander the Great was a Greek with absolutely no knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures. Second, you say it could be a vague prophecy, that doesn't really prove anything. Again, that doesn't work. The prophecy was very specific on how the city would be destroyed, and what it would eventually become. I'll find the verses for you when I can.
My point about New Testament copies was for those who think the Bible was a premeditated conspiracy, to show that it has been verified as a historical document. P.S. I can't make you believe not because I have no evidence, but rather that a Christian is someone who chooses to follow Christ, not someone who's been "argued into submission".
"What were you looking for, something with half a leg?" In a way, yes. At some point, if a species slowly goes from not having a leg to having one, their would be something between... Unless one generation had no legs while the second suddenly did, and that doesn't sound like evolution to me.
Sorry about no links, I'll get some you soon. Oh, and would you quit with the "FRICKEN EVIDENCE" stuff? It gets annoying real fast...
Sorry

I know mikro and makro evolution shouldn't be thrown in the same pot, but if you accept mikro evolution, why should makro not exist? The principles aren't that different..
And also, you attach too much importance on the 'missing missing links'. First of all, there is one principle you don't seem to fully understand by now: Absence of proof is no proof of absence. You may know that the fossils we found only represent a very small percentage of the actual prehistoric fauna and flora; probably even less than 1%. And some ecosystems had conditions that probably made fossilization pretty impossible. So...
I remember reading another thing about how we misunderstand the thing about missing links, I'll post it as soon as I find it.

The Cumberland Bonecaves are most well known of a series of caves filled with fossils. Nothing to controversial, until paleontologists started looking at the fossils. Species from all over the world, the majority of which were recognized as having never been inhabiting similar regions of the world. I'll get back to you with a link.

Also, about the prophecy, neither of your explanations works. First you say it might have been self fulfilling. That couldn't have happened, considering the fact that Alexander the Great was a Greek with absolutely no knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures. Second, you say it could be a vague prophecy, that doesn't really prove anything. Again, that doesn't work. The prophecy was very specific on how the city would be destroyed, and what it would eventually become. I'll find the verses for you when I can.
My point about New Testament copies was for those who think the Bible was a premeditated conspiracy, to show that it has been verified as a historical document. P.S. I can't make you believe not because I have no evidence, but rather that a Christian is someone who chooses to follow Christ, not someone who's been "argued into submission".

"What were you looking for, something with half a leg?" In a way, yes. At some point, if a species slowly goes from not having a leg to having one, their would be something between... Unless one generation had no legs while the second suddenly did, and that doesn't sound like evolution to me.

Sorry about no links, I'll get some you soon. Oh, and would you quit with the "FRICKEN EVIDENCE" stuff? It gets annoying real fast...
Sorry

The Cumberland Bonecaves are most well known of a series of caves filled with fossils. Nothing to controversial, until paleontologists started looking at the fossils. Species from all over the world, the majority of which were recognized as having never been inhabiting similar regions of the world. I'll get back to you with a link.

at least you have something to believe in if you r christian

@HahiHa
I'll look forward to it. And I know what you're saying. I just want people to realize that not ALL the pieces are there for Evolution. And also, I don't think the question is "Why shouldn't the principle carry?", but rather "Why should the principle carry." The existence of the first doesn't validate the second.
@314d1
Okay, here's the deal with the prophecy concerning Tyre. The scripture reference is Ezekiel 26:3-21
"...therefore, thus says the Lord God, "Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock. She will be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea, for I have spoken... Also her daughters on the mainland will be slain by the sword... I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon...He will slay your daughters on the mainland by the sword; and he will make siege walls against you... Also, THEY (note the change of pronouns) will make a spoil of your riches... and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris in the water... And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more..."
Okay, so lets break this down.
1. God will bring many nations against Tyre, a pretty safe prophecy. =P The babylonians, the Greeks, the Seleucidae, the Romans, the Muslims, and the Crusaders all attacked Tyre.
2. The mainland would be destroyed and those their killed by the sword, at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. From 585-572 BC, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the mainland part of the island, and finally took it, killing those there. (Tyre was situated on a small island right off the coast, but the city had expanded to the mainland too)
3. Some other nation ("they", rather than "he&quot would through the remains of this city into the water along with attacking the city. In 333 BC Alexander the Great demanded that Tyre surrender to him. After the island city refused, he took the large amounts of debris and rubble left from Nebuchadnezzar's conquest, and dumped it into the narrow straight separating the island from the mainland, forming a bridge, since he had no navy at the time.
4. Tyre will eventually be totally destroyed and will not be rebuilt. To this day, almost no trace remains of Tyre, and, unlike many other cities ravaged by war, was never rebuilt.
5. Tyre will become a place to fish. The waters surrounding Tyre are home to an expansive fishing industry today.
How could this book foretold all these details exactly? It was either written after the fact, which has already been shown to be highly improbable, or, there is actually some true prophecy here.
P.S. Please don't say that Ezekiel was a very lucky guesser. Really. =P

P.S. About the river, there were animals found from Canadian latitudes, prairie-like habitats, and tropical climates. Unless this stream wrapped around the majority of the globe, that explanation doesn't make much sense.

@HahiHa
I'll look forward to it. And I know what you're saying. I just want people to realize that not ALL the pieces are there for Evolution. And also, I don't think the question is "Why shouldn't the principle carry?", but rather "Why should the principle carry." The existence of the first doesn't validate the second.

4. Tyre will eventually be totally destroyed and will not be rebuilt. To this day, almost no trace remains of Tyre, and, unlike many other cities ravaged by war, was never rebuilt.

Today it is the fourth largest city in Lebanon

How could this book foretold all these details exactly? It was either written after the fact, which has already been shown to be highly improbable, or, there is actually some true prophecy here.
P.S. Please don't say that Ezekiel was a very lucky guesser. Really. =P

How could this book foretold all these details exactly? It was either written after the fact, which has already been shown to be highly improbable

P.P.S. From what I could get out of some quick research (I'll look at it more later) it looks like this Tyre was actually a new city, rather than a rebuilding of the old one, founded on the build up caused by Alexander's make-shift bridge. Because of the close proximity to the original city site, the name was used again. Not sure though, Ill get back to you on that.
Oh one last thing, are you even NOT on this forum? =P

P.S. About the river, there were animals found from Canadian latitudes, prairie-like habitats, and tropical climates. Unless this stream wrapped around the majority of the globe, that explanation doesn't make much sense.