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.
Relating his post to that definition is pushing it a bit I think.
well, he doesn't want to be an atheist, nor does he want to be religious, so he could just be agnostic...
theories > blind faith, alright!?
the theories you are speaking of are also based on blind faith. there are several things in the theories that require "blind faith" to believe. I forgot them because I never thought I would need to know them, so don't ask me. Also, Christianity is not "blind faith". Look up George Muller somewhere. He lived on faith for forty years. Obviously, that is not "blind".
the theories you are speaking of are also based on blind faith.
No they are based on evidence and observation not blind faith.
there are several things in the theories that require "blind faith" to believe. I forgot them because I never thought I would need to know them, so don't ask me.
How can you be so sure the theories are at fault if you yourself are ignorant on the subject?
No they are based on evidence and observation not blind faith.
It requires blind faith to believe that something could have happened even though the chances of it happening are billions and billions to one.
How can you be so sure the theories are at fault if you yourself are ignorant on the subject?
Did you take a class on Biology from a Christian view? If you did, you might have a better perspective on my beliefs. At the moment, you are near being totally ignorant of my views on life, so how are you arguing with me?
It requires blind faith to believe that something could have happened even though the chances of it happening are billions and billions to one.
For one thing, do you have any statistical evidence (from an unbiased source) to back up this claim, or did you say because it sounds good?
Did you take a class on Biology from a Christian view? If you did, you might have a better perspective on my beliefs. At the moment, you are near being totally ignorant of my views on life, so how are you arguing with me?
That is irrelevant. I am not arguing that I have a better perspective of Christian beliefs than you, but that since you admitted to your own ignorance on atheist theories you cannot be so sure that they are incorrect.
Actually, I've taken Biology from both perspectives. It is blindingly obvious which one makes sense when you learn both. A book that we can't even translate perfectly < Billions of years of fossil evidnce and decades of scientific analysis.
Scientific theories are very much based on faith. In fact, the theory of science is based on belief. Lets say I drop a ball one hundred times and it falls the same speed. Who says that if I drop the ball one more time it will fall at the same speed as the other times I dropped it? Maybe if I drop the ball one hundred more times I'll get completely unrelated values. Maybe the rules governing how a ball falls change every so often.
@Drschust, I'm not sure how dropping those balls really ties into the big picture of Christianity vs Atheism. Maybe you should elaborate on that statement.
For one thing, do you have any statistical evidence (from an unbiased source) to back up this claim, or did you say because it sounds good?
DNA, as you know, is extremely complex, and there are many ways to make it that don't work. I've said this before, and I'm saying it again. The chances of DNA being formed by chance are like the chances of a hundred monkeys pounding on a hundred typewriters accidentally typing out "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Go figure.
That is irrelevant. I am not arguing that I have a better perspective of Christian beliefs than you, but that since you admitted to your own ignorance on atheist theories you cannot be so sure that they are incorrect.
And I am arguing that I have a better perspective on evolution than you because I am looking at the whole picture. I actually accept the fact that there are several parts in the evolution theory that don't match up. One very simple thing that I was speaking of was that you evolutionists believe that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be formed. It could have been formed by a massive cataclysm, but you insist that the tiny river that runs through the canyon made the massive crack. It takes BLIND faith to believe that because neither side can be proven. A small example, but it proves my point.
A book that we can't even translate perfectly < Billions of years of fossil evidnce and decades of scientific analysis.
Show me the evidence that there is fossil evidence and I might agree with you. There is a reason the Bible isn't always translated properly. Language has it's limits. Hebrew and Greek are difficult to translate to English because sometimes, there are words that mean something that you can't really express in English very well.
The chances of DNA being formed by chance are like the chances of a hundred monkeys pounding on a hundred typewriters accidentally typing out "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Go figure.
You are basing your argument on the 'fact' that DNA has changed over time, by chance. However this shows a fundamental understanding on the theory of evolution. These genes are not passed on by chance. The species that were unable to survive became extinct, thus they did not pass on their genes. The species that did survive passed on their genes to the next generation. The culmination of this process over millions and millions of years leaves us where we are now. That is not chance, but natural selection. Those species did not survive by chance, but because their genes gave them the characteristics nescessary to do so in their environment.
O and I'm still waiting on some (unbiased) sources.
And I am arguing that I have a better perspective on evolution than you because I am looking at the whole picture. I actually accept the fact that there are several parts in the evolution theory that don't match up. One very simple thing that I was speaking of was that you evolutionists believe that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be formed. It could have been formed by a massive cataclysm, but you insist that the tiny river that runs through the canyon made the massive crack. It takes BLIND faith to believe that because neither side can be proven. A small example, but it proves my point.
If you acknowledged that there were holes in the creationist view, then that would be looking at the bigger picture. Yet, you are just attempting to discredit the geological beginnings of the Grand Canyon. Geology has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, therefore it is not a hole in the theory.
Do you have any proof at all that it could have been caused by a massive cataclysm?
And I am arguing that I have a better perspective on evolution than you because I am looking at the whole picture. I actually accept the fact that there are several parts in the evolution theory that don't match up. One very simple thing that I was speaking of was that you evolutionists believe that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be formed. It could have been formed by a massive cataclysm, but you insist that the tiny river that runs through the canyon made the massive crack. It takes BLIND faith to believe that because neither side can be proven. A small example, but it proves my point.
The entire relation to the Grand Canyon is "teh epik phail!" 1st.) There is evidence of erosion based on the wearing of the rock, and the fact that there is water at the bottom, water erodes rock, and there is a river running through a big rock. Logical reasoning says that if there is something that is eroded by something else, and presence of the eroder is present down waaaay in a deep crack oin the eroded, then erosion had something to do with it.
2nd.) There is no evidence besides your inference to the cataclysm theory, whereas there is EVIDENCE pointing toward erosion. ------- Nwither you, fourtytwo, or you, firefly, are seeing this from an unbiased view. The only way for there to be an unbiased view would be for someone to be raised with no view, never come into contact with anyone with a belief, and to have a doctorate in biology, geology, theology, paleontology, archaeology, and pretty much every science that deals with the past.
To play devils advocate for a bit (I think). There were 45 earthquakes in the vicinity of the canyon in the 1990's several of them over 5.0 on the RS. Many fault lines riddle the area.
Having said that however it is ludicrous to think something other than erosion caused the canyon. Like thisisnotanalt the eroder is there and a big crack has formed.
Show me the evidence that there is fossil evidence and I might agree with you.
If you look at alot of large cliff faces and what not you can see a space in the rock that is alot cleaner looking than everything beyond it, it is known as the K-T Boundary. This is fossil evidence of a time way before the bible theorizes the beginning of the earth. This divide is suspected to be the gap between the extinction of dinosaurs and the rise of mammals.
*revives thread, wonders if it was a good idea* ------------ There isn't any evidence for many of the Bible's stories, including Noah's Ark. The supposed ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey actually turned out to be a rock formation with some old wood nearby.
