Fear the Lord Christian Clan

[PLaTiNuM428]

The bible verses are only mentioned to explain what the bible says salvation is. They aren't used in my arguments, so feel free to read the post.

 

[caleeb12]

I did. Not that you addressed me. And btw, I applied on CA.

 

[Seawied]

Okay, you would like proof that evolution is a sham? Hmmm, what would that take? I'm guessing it would take molecular biology advances to undermine Darwin's very premise for his theory to begin with plus some biochemistry and genetics updates . Also, I think it would take Charles Darwin himself testifying against it.
OMG! I have both of those! Read on:

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, (Here's the confession)Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Here's the source)
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155.

Okay, so to make us even please get God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit on record saying it is "absurd in the highest degree" (*laugh*). I'll settle for a pope, archbishop, or even just a bishop. Maybe a long-term priest?

You know the funny thing... the more we learn, the more people tend to push the god-less theory. But then, once we reach a point, people start going back to God. They never stop learning, they just start to see it as a revelation of God's creation. That's also why more and more scientists are backing away from evolution and we have a lot of them turning to Christianity, hence the science and religion movement that is underway.

Also, Darwin's Theory was proposed as a slow and subtle process. That's not true. Not the way it works at all. It goes in leaps. There will be no change for a long time, and then boom! big change. So, again, the theory's premise has been proven false by science.

In case you're a little rusty on your modern science, Darwin's original book and ideas have been greatly modified to gain a greater understanding of evolution. He is credited with being the founder of the science, the current theory of evolution has evolved itself.

To help illustrate the difference between scientific logic and religious logic, I found this chart to help you out.

Furthermore, your little tidbit about the human eye. Sounds real scientific and all, but I looked up that page in the original copy of the Origin of Species

Distinct species present analogous variations; and a variety of one species often assumes some of the characters of an allied species, or reverts to some of the characters of an early progenitor.?These propositions will be most readily understood by looking to our domestic races. The most distinct breeds of pigeons, in countries most widely apart, present sub-varieties with reversed feathers on the head and feathers on the feet,?characters not possessed by the aboriginal rock-pigeon; these then are analogous variations in two or more distinct races. The frequent presence of fourteen or even sixteen tail-feathers in the pouter, may be considered as a variation representing the normal structure of another race, the fantail. I presume that no one will doubt that all such analogous variations are due to the several races of the pigeon having inherited from a common parent the same constitution and tendency to variation, when acted on by similar unknown influences. In the vegetable kingdom we have a case of analogous variation, in the enlarged stems, or roots as commonly called, of the Swedish turnip and Ruta baga, plants which several botanists rank as varieties produced by cultivation from a common parent: if this be not so, the case will then be one of analogous variation in two so-called distinct species; and to these a third may be added, namely, the common turnip. According to the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, we should have to attribute this similarity in the enlarged stems of these three plants, not to the vera causa of community of descent, and a consequent tendency to vary in a like manner, but to three separate yet closely related acts of creation.

With pigeons, however, we have another case, namely, the occasional appearance in all the breeds, of slaty-blue birds with two black bars on the wings, a white

interesting, I don't see your eye reference anywhere there.


I did however, find your exact text word for word cut from http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/ which is from an "unbiased" website called Allaboutscience.org. Obviously from their name, they are a legitimate website in now way constructed by a religious segment and that would not give into religious hype and attribute a phenomenon to God instead of being resourceful and diligent in breaking down an item to observational facts and data.......

.....Oops....



Next time you plagiarize, please at least try to make yourself look intelligent by doing it from a website thats not a joke from the "Christian Research Institute"


Evolution: 1
Plat & Caleeb: 0

 

[caleeb12]

Um..Are you blind? He said 155, not 159.

 

[Seawied]

doesn't matter, its still not there

turn to this subject in our chapter on Classification. It would be almost superfluous to adduce evidence in support of the above statement, that specific characters are more variable than generic; but I have repeatedly noticed in works on natural history, that when an author has remarked with surprise that some important organ or part, which is generally very constant throughout large groups of species, has differed considerably in closely-allied species, that it has, also, been variable in the individuals of some of the species. And this fact shows that a character, which is generally of generic value, when it sinks in value and becomes only of specific value, often becomes variable, though its physiological importance may remain the same. Something of the same kind applies to monstrosities: at least Is. Geoffroy St. Hilaire seems to entertain no doubt, that the more an organ normally differs in the different species of the same group, the more subject it is to individual anomalies.

On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, why should that part of the structure, which differs from the same part in other independently-created species of the same genus, be more variable than those parts which are closely alike in the several species? I do not see that any explanation can be given. But on the view of species being only strongly marked and fixed varieties, we might surely expect to find them still often continuing to vary in those parts of their structure which have varied within a moderately recent period, and which have thus come to differ. Or to state the case in another manner:?the points in which all the species of a genus resemble each other, and in which they differ from the species of some other genus, are called generic characters; and these characters in common I attribute to inheritance from a common

 

[illspirit]

Honestly, I'd like to argue with the idiots... I'm just too lazy.


@Seawied, I laughed. thanks. lol.

 

[Seawied]

Plagiarism 101: make sure the person you cheat off of is smarter than yourself

 

[PLaTiNuM428]

in the afternoon

good call. I'll research it more tomorrow when it's not almost 3 am. I'll provide better support. I do like the science chart though. In fact, I actually referenced that in a previous post. The one were I mentioned making the correct choice for my life.

Also, on the "keep idea forever" part of the faith chart, that is just ludicrous. We don't just stick to the same idea. We are EXTREMELY diverse. It's actually painful how diverse Christianity alone is, much more so when you add Islam and Judaism.

But, it's late and I'm going to bed. I'll research it in the morning. I'll provide sources, and I'll wipe that 1 off your scoreboard. However, even without it, I still think I've racked up 2 or 3 points to your temporary 1. Good night.

 

[Seawied]

the illustration, while humorous, outlines dogmatism of religion and ethical practices of science. While Christianity is diverse, its followers are incredibly dogmatic and unquestioning. There may be a few exceptions, Christianity encourages sheep like nature, even going as far as telling the followers to be like sheep.

John 10:14
(14)I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.(15) As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

The bible idolizes sheep quiet a bit, so much so that the word "Sheep" can be found 189 times in the bible; that's 61 more times than the word "Prayer"

The whole criticism of evolution from the church falls exactly in line with this line of thinking. Rather than realizing that these scientist are A) Not trying to disprove God, and B) are merely trying to understand better the world we live in. And analyzing the data to ratify the dogmatic teachings of the church, they ignore it (Creationism), call it "hearsay", and whip out a very sloppily put together counter theory (ID) and demand that their religious theories are taught in the school rooms of science class, despite the overwhelmingly obvious fact that that no Scientific evidence currently supports, or ever will supports the idea of a God driven Earth.

 

[Jordan B]

/end pointless religion thread.


I like cookies.

 

[caleeb12]

the illustration, while humorous, outlines dogmatism of religion and ethical practices of science. While Christianity is diverse, its followers are incredibly dogmatic and unquestioning. There may be a few exceptions, Christianity encourages sheep like nature, even going as far as telling the followers to be like sheep.



The bible idolizes sheep quiet a bit, so much so that the word "Sheep" can be found 189 times in the bible; that's 61 more times than the word "Prayer"

The whole criticism of evolution from the church falls exactly in line with this line of thinking. Rather than realizing that these scientist are A) Not trying to disprove God, and B) are merely trying to understand better the world we live in. And analyzing the data to ratify the dogmatic teachings of the church, they ignore it (Creationism), call it "hearsay", and whip out a very sloppily put together counter theory (ID) and demand that their religious theories are taught in the school rooms of science class, despite the overwhelmingly obvious fact that that no Scientific evidence currently supports, or ever will supports the idea of a God driven Earth.

I would like to say that the Bible idolizes nothing with the exception of Jesus and God. It's one of the 10 Commandments.

 

[MooCowMan]

Caleeb, you're about as useful as a football bat.

 

[PLaTiNuM428]

Your assumptions about me are wrong.
I am not assuming that "A) Scientists are out to disprove God" or that they aren't looking for the answer to ratify God.
I have already mentioned the movement currently underway to ratify both science and religion. (not that new) I have also mentioned that I am not against science, that I see it as a revelation of God's creation. What everything is made of and how it works, I see it all as what God did, and me learning more how it happened. The Bible doesn't give these answers. It doesn't explain it, it just mentions it. So, therefore I love the fact that we have science to further our understanding.
On a different note, the bible was written at a certain time, in a certain place, in the language of a certain people. That time, place, and people connected with shepherding and farming analogies. Saying our Lord is our Shepherd and we are His sheep is just an analogy to how much he actively cares for us, not for how we think. It tells us God is ACTIVE in our life, instead of passive.
What I am trying to do, is attack a few "scientists" who are on this forum who have already stated that they are in fact against the existence of God.
Furthermore, I am trying to use science and logic to construct some kind of case for God. Think about that for a minute. What if it were reversed? What if I asked you to use religion to prove science? What would you come up with? Or would you just say science proves itself? As for creating non-thinking sheep, why not teach both sides in schools? Wouldn't that create the environment where students could see both sides and actually decide for themselves? By only teaching science, aren't you, in fact, making little science sheep? Saying, only by following these protocols, can I believe anything.

There are tons of issues that science can not touch. Likewise, there are tons of issues that religion will never do a good enough job to convince everyone. Even if religion were able to get everyone, it would still be divided into groups that say the other is wrong, and that they alone are right.
Science is no different. They are just as obstinate as a Biblical literalist, or a Jehovah's witness, or an Islamic radical, etc.
We could do this for years, but after every argument, at the very best outcome, the scientist would say, "I'm still not convinced" and I would say, "I am convinced."

Even if God came down right now, showed himself to everyone, and said, "Here I am, I am God, I am real, believe in me now", and then did 10 miracles and let cameras film Him, there would STILL be scientists who would say that they would have to see Him more than once, or do something else, or fit into a hypothesis or a protocol.

So, the REAL question is this - What would it take to convince YOU? That is the ONLY difference between us. I had my moment. I became convinced. I live that conviction and each day reaffirms my decision. (Remember, I lived both lives, so I do have that to compare it to in my personal life.) Also, I previously stated that it was the correct choice for ME.

At no time have I tried to say that my way was the only way, that I have all the answers, that anyone else is retarded, or that you must dismiss your ways and adopt mine. Hell, I started my responses based on the moderators comments about a crucifix....

 

[caleeb12]

good job, Platinum.

 

[MooCowMan]

good job, Platinum.

Is that all you can do? Sit back and back your buddy because you, in reality know nothing about your religion? You hurt your cause more than you help it.