ForumsWEPR[nec]Christianity vs Atheism

3094 566929
kiddslayer12
offline
kiddslayer12
70 posts
Nomad

I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.

  • 3,094 Replies
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

i was talking to guitatrhero777, not choldofbodom. Sorry, it just drives me insane when people dispute a fact because they don't understand it.

Pixie214
offline
Pixie214
5,838 posts
Peasant

These are the stats for Noahs ark
1. The volume of the arc was 1.5 million cubic feet (about a 1/3 the size of the ALbert Hall).
2. There were likely to be 3 levels: the bottom holding the animals, the middle holding provisions and the top housing humans birds and dogs (who would be pleased to "eat their own vomit" for the duration of the trip). The bottom layer would be kept completly dark because wild animals like the dark and would actively seek it out.
3. There are thought to be 32 millions* species in the world ( both discovered and undiscovered) Even at the lowest total estimate of 5 million species (10 million on board) each animal would have 0.15 cubic feet of space each (great for a mouse not so good for a rhino).
4. At an average zoo there are 25 animals per keeper. On the ark there would be 1.25 million animals per person.
5. To feed each of these they would ahve had to feed 115 animals per second.
6. There are 3000 termite species but hte ark was made of wood.
7. At the start there woudl be 200,000 species of fly on board however (if left alone) by the end of the flood there would have been 190 trillion.
8. And lets not forget the many species of plant that would not survive a flood.

*this is an estimate.

Talo
offline
Talo
945 posts
Nomad

Do you seriously think that a monkey turned into a man? that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard in my life!


I believe that man and monkey have the same ancestry, not that man came from monkey. This is why you have insects and shellfish with the same enzymes in them. This is why man has a tail and gills in the womb. Why men have nipples and other genetic abnormalities. Why do we have fingernails and not claws? The relationship of the wasp and the ant. The male and queen ant have the same wings a wasp does, just different in size. Pangaea can't be proven, but every 1st grader with half a brain could tell that the continents fit together. It's the same way with most animals that are close together enough to tell that they have the same family. Many varieties of animals go extinct every year, what makes people think this is a new occurrence? Oh we haven't found any bones from missing links. We haven't found a lot of things that exist, so I don't see why a transitional period bones from 10,000 years ago or longer is any reason to disprove it.
fourtytwo
offline
fourtytwo
698 posts
Nomad

@ Pixie214 yes. he took 2 of every unclean and one of every clean animal. The terms "clean" and "unclean" did not mean "showered" and "muddy".

@ thisisnotanalt No. The Ark is not debunked by that because it is not true. Every animal that could hibernate did so. Also, though macroevolution (the thing we think of when we say "evolution&quot is not proven, microevolution (some call it "natural selection&quot has been proven. There could have been one set of creatures from every genus and we would still end up with 32 million species. We are not talking about species here, now. Just genus's

The other thing you said in that post was that evolution was not disproved by the fact that clams haven't changed significantly over a few million years. When I say that that clams were scattered all over the geological column, I meant that they were everywhere, including in the layers that you evolutionists say are billions of years old. That is a long time without changing.

You said I haven't presented any compelling evidence yet. What happened to all the other thing I said? You haven't done anything about those facts!

Your next post. I'm not disproving a fact, I'm disproving a theory. Also, I didn't use just one argument, I used several, and they were significant ones too, unlike the ones all of you are trying to throw at me.

@ Pixie214 I've seen a book that said all that. I've also seen a website that explains how all those things don't work. You should go look for it because this post is getting a little long.

@ Talo

You look at similarities between different animals and say those animals must have evolved from each other. The DNA that controls those parts of the animals that look similar are not similar at all.
If those thing came form evolution, the DNA would be similar. Christians have no problem with Pangaea, by the way. We actually believe it happened during the flood. (Yes, with that kind of a world-wide catastrophe, stuff like that can happen in one year.)
Pixie214
offline
Pixie214
5,838 posts
Peasant

The terms "clean" and "unclean" did not mean "showered" and "muddy".


No Really? Of course it didn't mean their hygeine levels. It is all tied in with kosher etc. Clean animals made themselves known by kneeling before Noah as they entered the Ark. I may not know every part of the Old Testament but don;t talk to me like I'm an idiot please.

Some of that info is from on Noah is from Johannes Buteo's "The shape and capacity of Noah's Ark" from 1554.


one of every clean animal


Why would he take one of an animal? That is ludicrous.
fourtytwo
offline
fourtytwo
698 posts
Nomad

sorry about the "one" I meant to type "seven" I just woke up.

The thing about clean animals kneeling wasn't in the Bible. I'm not trying to disagree, but whoever wrote that book either based it on educated guesses, or on some ancient manuscript that wasn't included in the Bible.

Pixie214
offline
Pixie214
5,838 posts
Peasant

I have no idea who Buteo was. He is quite obscure outside of France it seems. and all the info I find on him is in French. However he seems to be a mathmetician who studied at a French Abbey.

fourtytwo
offline
fourtytwo
698 posts
Nomad

Interesting...

thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

evolution is a tricky thing to prove or disprove. I'll tell you what I tell other people who doubt evolution: it's just dioxyribonucleic science. If evolution is looked at at a chemical, scientific level (the way it should be) then it's simply the adaptation of DNA to a changing climate and habitat over time. DNA is the code of life, and like computer code, it can be rewritten. One thing that almost proves evolution is that human DNA is 98% the same overall with simian DNA, especially chimpanzees. There is even a fertile chimpanzee specimen named Oliver who was shunned by other chimps, and has less hair, is taller, and has different limb lengths than other chimps. This implies a human-chimp relationship (ewwwww...) and the fact that humans are close enough to chimps to provide fertile offspring through mating. So, the genetic code of simians and homo sapiens is very similar, suggesting a common ancestor. It would do you good, fourtytwo, to actually read the theory of evolution, because you seem to have some misgivings and misunderstandings about it.
--------------------
Also, without evolution, then the cloning of extinct animals would not be possible. Because the outside shell of an egg cell contains the genetic info for the forming of the mitochondria, any creature that is not very genetically similar to the mother would not survive. However, there has been extensive evidence produced by scientific research testifying that it is possible. Evolution isnot an "always" thing, it is out of necessity. Also, if evolution were not around, then there would be no birds. There would only be flying reptiles, And they might even be extinct. Because birds have adapted to a changing environment and grown feathers, they have grown into a new phylum.
---------------------
hey fourtytwo, you don't have to be so condescending.

thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

also, fourtytwo, there are not a very large amount of animals who could hibernate, so that isn't even a factor.

Vert3x
offline
Vert3x
122 posts
Nomad

Dear thisisnotanalt and evolutionists in general:

I see it is you who are mistaken, and not fourtytwo. As you said, evolution is a tricky thing to prove and disprove. Let me emphasize the word prove. Just like Christianity, it is a religion, and it comes down to belief. As part of the evolutionary theory, you probably believe in the big bang and survival of the fittest. What came before the big bang? If it is just a cycle, why not a God, specifically, a loving Creator, behind all of this? As for survival of the fittest, what is it? You say it is a law. Has it been proven? Actually, it is unrealistic when you think about it. Why does the fittest tiger not eat up all of the other animals in the world? You say there are other factors, such as family groups, hunger, time, sleep, etc. Really, your "law" should be called survival of the survivors. A forest fire started by a random lightning strike could potentially leave only the weakest to survive.

Now, that's is done, let me show you the holes in your &quotroof." So evolution is âscientificâ you say? Nothing has been proven by what you said; you have only given theories on how things worked. Yes, DNA can be changed. Proof of this is shown all over nature in something we call natural selection, or microevolution. Species can be changed. Look at dogs. How did all of their types get there? Obviously, breeders over the years have taken advantage of microevolution to make them. Everybody can see that. But does that mean that dogs and all other mammals came from reptiles? That is quite a leap, as is between monkeys and humans. Just because one monkey has âsimilarâ characteristics to humans does not mean that they can make the full change to humans. The â98%â you talk about is actually only a small fraction of DNA that evoltionists look at, a simple gene that âprovesâ there beliefs. The rest of the data has been thrown away as âuseless.â Did you know that a chicken's tear enzyme is more âsimilarâ to humans than the chimp's? Does that say that chickens are more closely related to humans than chimps? No, of course not. Just because this new type of chimp is fertile, has a few human characteristics, etc. does not mean that evolution is proven and monkeys can definitely turn into humans.

Personally, I see that evolution takes just as much faith as Christianity. The chances for it have been compared to the chances of a tornado running through a junkyard and making a robot with all of the characteristic of a human (something humans themselves have not been able to do). For âmillionsâ of years, everything had to happen in the exact right way to create everything we see now. Look at the other hand: why not a God, a Creator? Seriously, who would believe in evolution, that everything happened by chance and that everything is just a meaningless struggle to survive, when you can believe in a loving, caring, all-powerful God?

Do not shun what fourtytwo says. You should listen more closely to what he has to offer.

I say, thisisnotanalt, do you have to be so condescending too? Welcome to the party :P

Vert3x
offline
Vert3x
122 posts
Nomad

also, fourtytwo, there are not a very large amount of animals who could hibernate, so that isn't even a factor.


http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/noahsark.htm

here is a list of some pretty good explanations for some things you have pointed out. I'm not saying they are all correct, just that they do a pretty good job.
FallenSky
offline
FallenSky
1,813 posts
Peasant

Epicurus:
''Is God willing to prevent evil,but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able,but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able,and wiling?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?''

All this talk to say we shouldn't take The question of god's existence so seriously.Devoted Christians have made themselves an image of a great old omnipotent man with a long beard waiting for us to come to paradise so he can explain all the mysteries of the universe while we're all sitting around his golden trone like little ingenuous kids.

''The chances for it have been compared to the chances of a tornado running through a junkyard and making a robot with all of the characteristic of a human''

Brilliant...but over mere subjective logic (...yes) I just can't bring myself to deny evolutionism.I don't see Religion as the panacea it should be because it tend to controle people more than it saves them...
However,the meaning of absolute atheism is deceiving,but sadly it reflects the world as it is today.
True atheism:to only know physical matter and sensations,living on the surface,contenting ourselves of material pleasures...
As Tillich would say...Anybody who have a notion of ''deepness'',or what's ''being deep'' knows God...Not the one we picture ourselves sitting in paradise;the one we are when we think,when we live.
Because when I know that I know,aren't I God myself?
The creation of the universe may never be quite explained,but it's just to say that we shouldn't think about someone in the sky laughing about it...
Both sides,on an extremist extent,are wrong.Life's to take some of both and build our beliefs on proper logic and objectivity.
Like Voltaire would say:''Why tire ourselves about questions we'll never be able to elude.Metaphysics are but a tool for the creation of war.''
Just stay open,and if you think this review is not apropriated,then you didn't understand...somebody should try to lighten up or just lock this thread.
Try to laugh.
Read Alan Watts.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Just like Christianity, it is a religion, and it comes down to belief.

If all it takes for something to be classified as a religion is for you to have to believe it, then every piece of knowledge that we believe would be a religion. Calling the theory of evolution a religion is simply absurd, unless you want to define "religion" in terms so broad they are completely useless.

What came before the big bang? If it is just a cycle, why not a God, specifically, a loving Creator, behind all of this?


First, evolutionary theory does not deal with the big bang or even the origin of life. This theory simply describes the effects of mutations within an already established system. So, attack on anything other than evolutionary theory are simply red herrings.
Trying to set up an infinite regress of causation just doesn't work. The obvious counter to what came before the big bang is: what came before god? But there is something much more fundamentally wrong here. To presuppose that causation functions in the way we perceive it actually quite a huge leap. And to force the scientist to explain a first cause while presenting an ad-hoc theory of god to avoid the first cause rebuttal is simply poor argumentation.

As for survival of the fittest, what is it? You say it is a law. Has it been proven?

Have you actually read anything on natural selection is the past... oh... 200 years or so? Not only does the concept of natural selection seem intuitively correct, but your counterexample of one tiger eating every other animal in the world just doesn't work. Animals don't just kill for pleasure, for the most part, and to conjecture an animal that can somehow kill everything else on the planet is just ridiculous.

Nothing has been proven by what you said; you have only given theories on how things worked.

Scientists do not look to &quotrove" theories - they look to disprove them. So you're right in that a pure understanding of evolution can't be proven. But the simple fact is that whether or not evolution occurred is not really debated in the scientific community. Religious leaders and opponents of evolution try to spread information that would suggest the scientific community is torn on the subject. But anyone with any amount of respect in the scientific (and specifically biology) community accepts the basic tenets of evolution. What we don't know are all the specifics, but scientists continue to try to work things out. Just like physicists don't know why we have gravity or how it works - but there is little doubt in the physics community that gravitational forces exist.

Just because this new type of chimp is fertile, has a few human characteristics, etc. does not mean that evolution is proven and monkeys can definitely turn into humans.

Again, have you actually read evolutionary theory? Nowhere is it postulated that humans evolved from apes or monkeys. We did share a common ancestor that branched off - on branch becoming certain kinds of apes and the other evolving into what became humans.

The chances for it have been compared to the chances of a tornado running through a junkyard and making a robot with all of the characteristic of a human

This argument is used a LOT - and it is terrible. To suggest the odds are ridiculously low for humans to evolve is to ignore the fact that we are here! And comparing evolution to a tornado in a junkyard is just a bad analogy.
Certainly, evolution is chaotic at its core and not every mutation that occurs is meaningful in any way. But taken with natural selection, we can see how checks are for or against certain mutations that happen to help a species to survive.

Seriously, who would believe in evolution, that everything happened by chance and that everything is just a meaningless struggle to survive, when you can believe in a loving, caring, all-powerful God?

Who would want to delude themselves into serving a magical creature that demands your obedience. And if you don't obey this magical creature, then you are punished for all eternity. I would much rather live my life for its own meaning. I know what's going to happen to me when I die - I'm going to stop existing. At that point, there's nothing really more to worry about.
FallenSky
offline
FallenSky
1,813 posts
Peasant

Well said,thank you
And sorry for the unclear post,the ''Brilliant'' was a fantastic sarcasm don't get me wrong.

Showing 631-645 of 3094