Do You Believe In Evolution?

[squeekness]

Yeah I am gonna stop trying to explain this stuff to people on the Hype...

I don't thonk science is bad, I just think we need to tread carefully is all. We don't need to know it all at once, it isn't a race after all. We just need to be careful and responsible about what we do with what we have learned.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I was thinking about this as I was gone to supper. I mean, we've figured out the present day animals have adapted over time to their situations -- moles without eyes, squirrels with extra skin to glide and all that. But have we really proven that humans absolutely came from apes? If we have not done that, and I don't think we have, then evolution would still be theory and not fact. I mean, just the fact that we as a group are having this conversation about the different theories tells me that evolution hasn't been proven as an absolute fact and so is still a theory. I think that science has proven that evolution PROBABLY happened, but we haven't proven it as FACT. If we had, then Creationists would have no leg to stand on, no doubts to keep their platform going.

i think people take the "ape" reference way too literal... i believe we were cut from the same cloth, but i highly doubt the things we evolved from look like apes of today.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

And how do you know this? Because it was written on paper and such?

Not entirely. While I admit my knowledge of Scripture has aided me in my faith, some things have come about through my own personal experiences. As I've said before, when you get rid of all the excuses and defensive statements, every human being on the planet essentially falls into one of two categories: those with a will to believe in God, and those with a will not to believe in God.

Garbage. Mountains aren't made of dried up mud, you obviously didn't do well in your high school science classes if you think that.

I freely admit that I stated things wrong when I had the whole "dried mud" idea. What I'm suggesting now is that at one point, most of the Earth was land, rather than water. As such, a vast amount of water would've filled in the shallow land areas, becoming oceans. At the same time, the massive water pressure on all the land would carve out geographic structures like hills and mountains. A good example of this would be the fact that many bodies of water have caves at the bottom. Well, if the oceans have always been this way (which most evolutionists seem to think), how did the caves get there? Erosion would basically be nonexistent with a body of water that barely moves.

Moreover, a global flood is scientifically impossible, because the amount of water which would cover the earth would never be able to be evaporated at the rate at which it was.

Scripture says that the flood was created by the rains from the heavens, and the floodgates of the deep bursting forth. Well, we know that water springs still exist in the ocean depths, so there's the "floodgates" right there. As for the rain, some believe there was a canopy of either water or ice surrounding the atmosphere some 4,500 years ago or so. If that were the case, then the rain would be caused by that ice canopy melting. Combined with the floodgates, it would be very possible for the entire globe to be covered by water. Then, as evaporation took place, the waters would recede, but not far enough to erase the new oceans.

God hasn't proved that he exists to the world. Men have written books and professed their beliefs and dictated sermons... but none of that is definitive proof that God exists.

Why? Simply because you refuse to believe it? How does that make Scripture any less true? The divinity and accuracy of the Bible can be reasonably ascertained by understanding the historical and spiritual contexts in which it was written.

...people use the idea of Christianity is a device for manipulation. Because this has happened so frequently, how are we supposed to believe people who say God is real? Because they said so? That doesn't make any sense.

I've said it many times: "Don't judge Christianity by the acts of Christians, but rather by the Bible itself." God's Word is completely infallible, but human understanding is not. People have ways of using the most righteous and holy things in this world to condemn people, simply because they don't like them. Jesus never did that. He did make the boundaries of truth and falsehood very clear, but he spent the majority of His time helping those the Pharisees unjustly persecuted. When asked about it, His reply was simple: "I've come to call sinners, not those who think they are already good enough".

Plainly put, if anyone thinks they are good enough to merit acceptance into Heaven on their own, they're fooling themselves. We as a race are fallen and selfish, completely unworthy of God and His Kingdom by our own merits. That's why Jesus came; to pay the penalty none of us ever could.

Physical evidence is required in order to PROVE the DEFINITIVE existence of something. Otherwise, it is entirely based in faith, and people cannot say for certain that God exists unless they have PHYSICAL evidence of its existence.

...and Scripture is that evidence. God has simply stated, "Here's the Word I have for you; accept it or not. It's your choice."

Or maybe because we are incapable of actually grasping the scientific concepts which are responsible for our existence, we conveniently concocted a magical being responsible for overseeing every aspect of the universe and our existence. We are a very imaginative species; if we don't understand something, we try to make sense of it.

Similar to how people will go to nearly any length of the imagination, to avoid accepting what God already said thousands of years ago. Very little of this resistance is even about knowledge; it's about authority. If God made this world, that that means He owns it, and He makes the rules. Some folks despise the notion of God telling them what to do, so they try and invent ways to get away from Him.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Do I Believe in Evolution?

Yes!

 

[Oddzball]

Do you? Explain why/ why not.

I am an athiest, and have been for about 10 years. I have always believed in evolution since I first learned about it. However, in a fit of boredom, I started reading my christian roomate's book, "The Case for a Creator". I only started, but in it were a few disturbingly good arguments:

1. Science has proved that in the early period of earth, conditions were right to spontaneously produce amino acids, which lead to the development of cells- Apparently later experiments disproved that, saying it would be very improbably for amino acids to naturally form from the existing molecules

2. Different species slowly evolved through time, explaining how such diverse species came from single cells- but there are instances in history when species suddenly appear that are far different from previous animals

3. All embryos in early stages of life are very similar, proving the idea that we all have a common ancestor- except apparently a lot of embryos are very different.

So, I hope this isn't too scientific and complicated (I know a lot of you are still in high school), but I'd be very interested in what you all think. Are we related to monkeys, or to two naked people?

I object to the word 'believe' as used here. 'Belief' is a term used by the opposing side and means in their context 'faith' in something regardless of either an absence evidence on their side or an overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting evolution.

To believe given the usage of 'believe' by the anti-evolution side of this is to muddy things.

I do affirm however that the evidence for evolution is sufficient, and then some to lead me to conclude it is the correct explanaton of how life came to be on Earth.

 

[Oddzball]

Not entirely. While I admit my knowledge of Scripture has aided me in my faith, some things have come about through my own personal experiences. As I've said before, when you get rid of all the excuses and defensive statements, every human being on the planet essentially falls into one of two categories: those with a will to believe in God, and those with a will not to believe in God.

Strictly speaking, evolution v creation is not about God, Gods, or any Creator.

It's about the use of the Bible as an inerrant source of information and a belief in that inerrancy.

Simply put: The evidence utterly shreds Genesis. To preserve the inerrent status given to the Bible believers have two choices: 1) accept Genesis as God's parables to the Hebrew tribes. 2) Rail against the evidence and throw any and all mud and garbage against it to obscure just how bad a situation Genesis as literal truth is in.

 

[Oddzball]

I don't thonk science is bad, I just think we need to tread carefully is all. We don't need to know it all at once, it isn't a race after all. We just need to be careful and responsible about what we do with what we have learned.

The problem with that approach is that there is a well funded movement out to supress evolution being taught and they aren't waiting or for that matter considere waiting.

 

[Oddzball]

Even if that scientific proposition hasn't been proven as fact? (I am not try to argue, I am just not getting why Creationism can't be a theory since it is an idea that has yet to be proved....)

Mostly because, Theory in science is top of the food chain. Later discoveries can make changes in current knowledges. "Laws" in science or an anachronism. Special Relativity and strict Newtonian movement do not agree. In the sorts of tests Newton could have conducted, the slight reduction of speed two galloping horses approaching each other have is immeasurable. Newtonian models work superb for speeds well below light.

But Newton's laws have been trumped and science avoids labeling anything a law these days.

Evolution is theory, so is Relativity. Evolution just has a bigger, better body of evidence supporting it than Relativity does.

But the point is they are top of the food chain. Neither ID nor Creation Science has sufficient evidence to wipe Evolution's boots, let alone be considered a viable challenge.

Giving this lightweight (non-weight IMHO) speculation 'equal time' in text books because it's POPULARLY accepted lightweight speculation is a crime against not just Science but all students.

Churches don't need our schools to help with their efforts to brainwash.

 

[jks]

That so-called "evidence" has yet to conclusively prove that the cosmos originated from an explosion of nothing. You'd think after 150 years, folks would throw out the evolution theory, and replace it.

And even then, it's still an unprovable scientific idea. If humanity could 100% prove evolution, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it wouldn't be called a theory anymore...it'd be a fact. But that hasn't happened, and there's a reason for it: it's false.

This always amuses and puzzles me at the same time. How are humans supposed to prove the existence of a spiritual being, relying soleley on science as a method? You cannot approach a spiritual subject without a matching approach; that'd be like trying to explain colors to a blind person...it just doesn't work, because there's no proper frame of reference.

People like this are why these threads are always golden. No matter how bad a day I've had, no matter how much of a crap mood I'm in or how bad I might feel about my life, I can now at least say "hey, at least I'm superior to Moviefan2k4" and at the end of the day feel better.

 

[Danalys]

I was thinking about this as I was gone to supper. I mean, we've figured out the present day animals have adapted over time to their situations -- moles without eyes, squirrels with extra skin to glide and all that. But have we really proven that humans absolutely came from apes? If we have not done that, and I don't think we have, then evolution would still be theory and not fact. I mean, just the fact that we as a group are having this conversation about the different theories tells me that evolution hasn't been proven as an absolute fact and so is still a theory. I think that science has proven that evolution PROBABLY happened, but we haven't proven it as FACT. If we had, then Creationists would have no leg to stand on, no doubts to keep their platform going.

they do have no leg to stand on. well the anti evolutionists atleast. the evidence for humans close relationship to the other great apes is in our morphology, fossils, our genes, even our psychology. we have a chromosome pair that is two ape chromosome pairs fused together. you can see where the ends were originally within that chromosome pair.

seriously they are like the black knight from monty python and the holy grail. just because they cannot see they have no leg to stand on or do not admit it does not mean that they have a leg to stand on.

 

[Bill]

I was thinking about this as I was gone to supper. I mean, we've figured out the present day animals have adapted over time to their situations -- moles without eyes, squirrels with extra skin to glide and all that. But have we really proven that humans absolutely came from apes? If we have not done that, and I don't think we have, then evolution would still be theory and not fact. I mean, just the fact that we as a group are having this conversation about the different theories tells me that evolution hasn't been proven as an absolute fact and so is still a theory. I think that science has proven that evolution PROBABLY happened, but we haven't proven it as FACT. If we had, then Creationists would have no leg to stand on, no doubts to keep their platform going.

Fact, in the world of science, does not equate to "absolute certainty." Only in math, where value is assigned to variables and the variables are able to be controlled, does 100% fact exist. In the natural world we aren't able to exercise that kind of control. But in the sense that it occurs and has been proven to the point that any resistance is attributed to ignorance, stubborn denial or bigotry, evolution is a fact.

But it is also a theory. Theory, in science, explains the fact. The fact is that evolution occurs, has occurred in the past and will occur in the future. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how it worked, has worked and will work.

Creationists don't have a leg to stand on. They haven't had one to stand one for decades. But that doesn't mean that they will ever stop their platform from going. This isn't about science. It's about a threat to their faith. They have had to concede many things over the years. Not that long ago, you couldn't get a Creationist to admit to microevolution. But there will never be enough evidence to get them to admit that their interpretation of the Bible is wrong dealing with the age of the Earth and science. For them to do so would constitute a direct attack of the basis of their faith and that faith would break down and become meaningless. The inerrancy of the Bible has to be maintained at all costs including blatantly ignoring evidence and knowledge.

Watch Moviefan wallow around in a poor caricature of science that he was undoubtedly handed by a tract or pamphlet. He, and people like him, have been fed these erroneous representations of science and their wish for their faith to remain intact coupled with the desire for science to be wrong fuels the ability to keep repeating the same erroneous information over and over again, despite being corrected repeatedly. It's a self-sustaining delusion. It's pretty sad actually.

 

[Majic Walrus]

That so-called "evidence" has yet to conclusively prove that the cosmos originated from an explosion of nothing. You'd think after 150 years, folks would throw out the evolution theory, and replace it.

And even then, it's still an unprovable scientific idea. If humanity could 100% prove evolution, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it wouldn't be called a theory anymore...it'd be a fact. But that hasn't happened, and there's a reason for it: it's false.

Let's see what Movie Fan has to say about the necessity for proof positive beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Proving the existence of God must be done from a spiritual point of view, first and foremost, because He is a spirit. Using science to find evidence for His ways is good too, but it can often be miscontrued or ill-represented.

So you're obviously saying that there's no way to prove God, no evidence that will prove God beyond your "spiritual" point of view but he's still valid because of your personal observations. He's valid to you as FACT. However when science attempts to make such leaps you scoff and claim that it must be false because it cannot be proven.

Thanks for proving that the evolution of human beings is false. If evolution were true then hopefully by this point in time we wouldn't all be clinging to mythologies and spirtuality to get us through life.

 

[JTIZZLEVILLE]

You seem to misunderstand what MovieFan is saying.

I will be one of the first Christian to admit that I cannot sit here and debate with you over evolution vs. creationism. I honestly admit that, on paper, evolution seems to have more backing. My whole problem with that is, if that is truly the way it happened, it would have been proven without a shadow of a doubt by now.

For anyone who has ever studied Astronomy, it is amazing at the sheer knowledge our scientists have about our solar system. They can tell you everything to how a star forms, to how it dies, to how galaxies are made, to how (they think) the universe was formed. Pretty amazing considering that no one has been that far in space to observe these phenomena.

Do you know how astronomers have learned this? By studying the way light reflects off certain objects in the sky and by the relatively few pictures we have. How can they know all this stuff by looking at reflections but still not have a grasp on how the universe was formed?

Then again, I've had some of the nation's best astronomers tell me that, on a very frequent basis, they will discover something else in space that they have never seen before and it will totally change the way they think about certain objects. Science seem to be very fickle in that respect.

I actually read this thread yesterday and I wanted to join in the debate. After thinking about the words I should say, I finally realized that God has not called me to debate on His behalf.

So many times, Christians think it is there responsibility to make the non-believer believe. That is not what God has called us to do. He has called us to "witness," to spread the news about Him. That is it. I can only plant the seed. It is now God's responsibility to deal with a non-believer's heart, soul, and mind. After all, only God can break the bondage that creates a stronghold in your mind.

God created us. He created the universe and everything we know. He then sent His son Jesus to die on a cross as the ultimate penalty for our sins. He did that because he wants a relationship with you. It doesn't matter how old you are, what you have done, and if you believe right now or not. All you have to do is believe in you heart that Jesus is Lord, confess with you mouth that you are a sinner, and allow Jesus to come in to your heart and change your life.

Before you write God off as fake, please take the time to seek His face. If a friend told you a movie was good, you wouldn't go around raving how amazing it was if you had never seen it. No, you would take his words and go see the movie for yourself so you can make your own judgment. God is the same way.

What have you got to lose? If I am wrong and God is in fact not real, then when I die I end up the same as you. I'm just a dead body in the ground. I have not lost anything.

If you are wrong and God is real then you will face a punishment for your lifelong rejection

 

[squeekness]

Mostly because, Theory in science is top of the food chain. Later discoveries can make changes in current knowledges. "Laws" in science or an anachronism. Special Relativity and strict Newtonian movement do not agree. In the sorts of tests Newton could have conducted, the slight reduction of speed two galloping horses approaching each other have is immeasurable. Newtonian models work superb for speeds well below light.

But Newton's laws have been trumped and science avoids labeling anything a law these days.

Evolution is theory, so is Relativity. Evolution just has a bigger, better body of evidence supporting it than Relativity does.

But the point is they are top of the food chain. Neither ID nor Creation Science has sufficient evidence to wipe Evolution's boots, let alone be considered a viable challenge.

Giving this lightweight (non-weight IMHO) speculation 'equal time' in text books because it's POPULARLY accepted lightweight speculation is a crime against not just Science but all students.

Churches don't need our schools to help with their efforts to brainwash.

I agree that Evolution trumps Creationism because for me at least, the science is there. It doesn't disprove God in my opinion, because I believe He started the mechanism that started evolution and all that. I was just saying that without absolute proof, both are still theories even though Evolution is the better and far more probable theory. I do think that there might be a problem with evolution being the ONLY theory taught in most schools, I'd think it might be a good idea to let kids know that there is more than one way of thinking and let the kids work it out for themselves.

they do have no leg to stand on. well the anti evolutionists atleast. the evidence for humans close relationship to the other great apes is in our morphology, fossils, our genes, even our psychology. we have a chromosome pair that is two ape chromosome pairs fused together. you can see where the ends were originally within that chromosome pair.

seriously they are like the black knight from monty python and the holy grail. just because they cannot see they have no leg to stand on or do not admit it does not mean that they have a leg to stand on.

Well, those of opposite opinions will always strike at weakness. Until we can come up with those missing links in between monkey and man or eohippus to horse, there will always be enough room for doubt that someone else can capitalize on.

Fact, in the world of science, does not equate to "absolute certainty." Only in math, where value is assigned to variables and the variables are able to be controlled, does 100% fact exist. In the natural world we aren't able to exercise that kind of control. But in the sense that it occurs and has been proven to the point that any resistance is attributed to ignorance, stubborn denial or bigotry, evolution is a fact.

Well, here's the thing. If Creationists are being asked to provide absolute proof of their theory, shouldn't evolutionists be held to the same standard before they can say their suggestion is absolutely the right one?

But it is also a theory. Theory, in science, explains the fact. The fact is that evolution occurs, has occurred in the past and will occur in the future. The theory of evolution seeks to explain how it worked, has worked and will work.

Exactly. One guy a coupla pages ago was insulted that I used the word theory with evolution but the fact does remain that until we do prove evolution (and I think we will eventually) it is just a theory and not yet fact.

 

[Danalys]

I agree that Evolution trumps Creationism because for me at least, the science is there. It doesn't disprove God in my opinion, because I believe He started the mechanism that started evolution and all that. I was just saying that without absolute proof, both are still theories even though Evolution is the better and far more probable theory. I do think that there might be a problem with evolution being the ONLY theory taught in most schools, I'd think it might be a good idea to let kids know that there is more than one way of thinking and let the kids work it out for themselves.

you're still trying to put them on some what of a level standing. you're making the distinction the probablity. this is incorrect they are distinct in that in scientific language the theory of evolution is a theory and creationism is nothing. in commen vernacular creationism is a theory and "the theory of evolution" is a well surported proposition. they are different no matter what. and therefor one is something that is taught in science class and the other isn't. a chief proponent of intellegent design had to admit in court that if you changed science so that it could encompass ID then they would have to allow equal time for astrology alongside astronomy. personally i think education is bad enough already without wasting time teaching horoscopes.

Well, those of opposite opinions will always strike at weakness. Until we can come up with those missing links in between monkey and man or eohippus to horse, there will always be enough room for doubt that someone else can capitalize on.

they don't strike at weaknesses, they make them up. it's politics rather than genuine discussion.

Well, here's the thing. If Creationists are being asked to provide absolute proof of their theory, shouldn't evolutionists be held to the same standard before they can say their suggestion is absolutely the right one?

they aren't asked to provide absolute proof. they are asked to provide any evidence at all.

Exactly. One guy a coupla pages ago was insulted that I used the word theory with evolution but the fact does remain that until we do prove evolution (and I think we will eventually) it is just a theory and not yet fact.

squeek you're going back and forth and all over the place on this issue.

 

[Kent]

To answer the OP, I accept common descent as the overwhelmingly best available explanation for a a great variety of phenomena in fields like molecular biology, biogeography, paleontology, and comparative anatomy.

Furthermore I accept random mutation combined with natural selection (and a few other mechanisms, such as genetic drift, etc) as the best explanation for how the relatedness that common descent show came to be.

I reject all forms of creationism in which species appeared "as is", based upon the strong evidence to the contrary, and the fact that no form of creationism I've ever been presented with has had any form of explanatory power.
Furthermore I reject so called Intelligent Design, seeing as how it is simply a "fancy" rewording of the age old canard "I can't understand how evolution could have done it, therefore God somehow by default did."

 

[spideyboy_1111]

You seem to misunderstand what MovieFan is saying.

I will be one of the first Christian to admit that I cannot sit here and debate with you over evolution vs. creationism. I honestly admit that, on paper, evolution seems to have more backing. My whole problem with that is, if that is truly the way it happened, it would have been proven without a shadow of a doubt by now.

Nothing in science is truely proved without a shadow of a doubt true. Hell gravity is still a theory, and we've known about that alot longer than evolution.

 

[Tally Man]

From Websters:

THEORY:

–noun, plural -ries. 1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.6.contemplation or speculation.7.guess or conjecture.


How do these definitions make my point invalid? Because you think a religious idea can't be a theory? By these rules, it can be unless proven absolutely otherwise.....

Just to chime in here you seem to be using a more common usage form of theory as opposed to a scientific theory. This is what a scientific theory is

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

This is what Carcharodon has been trying to point out. A scientific theory is more than just a simply group of propositions to explain something. Its something that is testable and can make predictions on things. It is also something that is verified after a lot of testing. So you can't really compare the scientific theory of evolution as being equal to the common usage definition of theory that creationism falls into.

 

[Bubonic]

lol, you guys enjoying debating with Moviefan2k4 might try to get through a 2 foot thick brick wall using your head, it'll be easier.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

You seem to misunderstand what MovieFan is saying.

Certain folks have been misconstruing virtually everything I say for over the past year; I keep repeating it in diffrent ways, but they still don't get it.

I will be one of the first Christians to admit that I cannot sit here and debate with you over evolution vs. creationism. I honestly admit that, on paper, evolution seems to have more backing. My whole problem with that is, if that is truly the way it happened, it would have been proven without a shadow of a doubt by now.

Exactly.

For anyone who has ever studied Astronomy, it is amazing at the sheer knowledge our scientists have about our solar system. They can tell you everything to how a star forms, to how it dies, to how galaxies are made, to how (they think) the universe was formed. Pretty amazing considering that no one has been that far in space to observe these phenomena.

Actually, I find it interesting that in all of human history, no one has ever seen a star actually form. Scientists have theories galore on the subject, but none of them have ever been conclusively proven.

Do you know how astronomers have learned this? By studying the way light reflects off certain objects in the sky and by the relatively few pictures we have. How can they know all this stuff by looking at reflections but still not have a grasp on how the universe was formed?

Good point; if we as a race were truly so smart, you'd think we'd have figured it out by now.

Then again, I've had some of the nation's best astronomers tell me that, on a very frequent basis, they will discover something else in space that they have never seen before and it will totally change the way they think about certain objects. Science seem to be very fickle in that respect.

Yes, it is. Many scientists will tell you flat-out that standard policy is to throw out theories that don't work, and replace them. But with evolution, they haven't thought of anything to replace that theory, because throwing it out would leave a tremendous hole where the origins of life are concerned. They don't want to trash the evolution theory because at present, there's only one viable substitute: the Word of God...and to accept that would mean placing all of humanity under His authority, which they don't want to do.

I actually read this thread yesterday and I wanted to join in the debate. After thinking about the words I should say, I finally realized that God has not called me to debate on His behalf.

So many times, Christians think it is there responsibility to make the non-believer believe. That is not what God has called us to do. He has called us to "witness," to spread the news about Him. That is it. I can only plant the seed. It is now God's responsibility to deal with a non-believer's heart, soul, and mind. After all, only God can break the bondage that creates a stronghold in your mind.

You're absolutely right, and sometimes I get so carried away in discussion, I lose sight of the fact that God handles the transformation of human hearts, rather than man.

God created us. He created the universe and everything we know. He then sent His son Jesus to die on a cross as the ultimate penalty for our sins. He did that because he wants a relationship with you. It doesn't matter how old you are, what you have done, and if you believe right now or not. All you have to do is believe in you heart that Jesus is Lord, confess with you mouth that you are a sinner, and allow Jesus to come in to your heart and change your life.

Therein lies the greatest thing about Christianity, at least in my opinion. All other faiths around the world teach, to some degree or another, that people must "earn" their way to God...be it through works, money, sacrifices, etc. by contrast, the Message of Christ is all about grace. God knows we don't deserve it, but He offers it anyway, because He loves us.

Before you write God off as fake, please take the time to seek His face. If a friend told you a movie was good, you wouldn't go around raving how amazing it was if you had never seen it. No, you would take his words and go see the movie for yourself so you can make your own judgment. God is the same way.

Precisely. In all truth, you can read the Bible until you're blue in the face, searching for answers till you drop...but if you're never willing to truly embrace it in your heart, you won't get anywhere.

What have you got to lose? If I am wrong and God is in fact not real, then when I die I end up the same as you. I'm just a dead body in the ground. I have not lost anything.

If you are wrong and God is real then you will face a punishment for your lifelong rejection

Unfortunately, the standard reply from disbelievers often is, "well, it only applies if you believe the Bible". The only thing they have to fall back on is their belief that truth is relative, rather than absolute. Even Scripture tells of people being "willfully ignorant" where God is concerned, and describes itself as being "foolishness to the hard of heart".

 

[Franklin Richards]

It's so weird how you can have faith in a folktale but not science.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

It's so weird how you can have faith in a folktale but not science.

Agrees. But people are free to believe in what they want... even if it's nothing more then a fairy tale.

Point is, they want to believe, and want to because they fear questioning there own religion. Blind faith is ignorance, I respect Christians more when they can step outside of the box and understand other point of views, and at least accept the fact that there book may indeed not be literal truth.

 

[Majic Walrus]

You seem to misunderstand what MovieFan is saying.

I will be one of the first Christian to admit that I cannot sit here and debate with you over evolution vs. creationism. I honestly admit that, on paper, evolution seems to have more backing. My whole problem with that is, if that is truly the way it happened, it would have been proven without a shadow of a doubt by now.

Why? Why would it be proven now? Why would the big bang theory or evolution be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by now? Scientifically speaking it's a relatively new theory.

Why would this small new theory need to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt if it's factual but yet you don't hold the creator to the same standards? If God created the universe there should be scientific evidence of this.

For anyone who has ever studied Astronomy, it is amazing at the sheer knowledge our scientists have about our solar system. They can tell you everything to how a star forms, to how it dies, to how galaxies are made, to how (they think) the universe was formed. Pretty amazing considering that no one has been that far in space to observe these phenomena.

Do you know how astronomers have learned this? By studying the way light reflects off certain objects in the sky and by the relatively few pictures we have. How can they know all this stuff by looking at reflections but still not have a grasp on how the universe was formed?

Then again, I've had some of the nation's best astronomers tell me that, on a very frequent basis, they will discover something else in space that they have never seen before and it will totally change the way they think about certain objects. Science seem to be very fickle in that respect.

If by fickle you mean subject to new observations and new discoveries. Yes it's very fickle. Not at all like Christianity or religion that will not budge or change no matter what scientific evidence comes along.

I actually read this thread yesterday and I wanted to join in the debate. After thinking about the words I should say, I finally realized that God has not called me to debate on His behalf.

So many times, Christians think it is there responsibility to make the non-believer believe. That is not what God has called us to do. He has called us to "witness," to spread the news about Him. That is it. I can only plant the seed. It is now God's responsibility to deal with a non-believer's heart, soul, and mind. After all, only God can break the bondage that creates a stronghold in your mind.

God created us. He created the universe and everything we know. He then sent His son Jesus to die on a cross as the ultimate penalty for our sins. He did that because he wants a relationship with you. It doesn't matter how old you are, what you have done, and if you believe right now or not. All you have to do is believe in you heart that Jesus is Lord, confess with you mouth that you are a sinner, and allow Jesus to come in to your heart and change your life.

Before you write God off as fake, please take the time to seek His face. If a friend told you a movie was good, you wouldn't go around raving how amazing it was if you had never seen it. No, you would take his words and go see the movie for yourself so you can make your own judgment. God is the same way.

What have you got to lose? If I am wrong and God is in fact not real, then when I die I end up the same as you. I'm just a dead body in the ground. I have not lost anything.

If you are wrong and God is real then you will face a punishment for your lifelong rejection

I appreciate your sincere attempt to convert me in to what you believe to be a religion of peace, freedom, and eternal security. That's pretty boss of you.

But for the record I've don't really think I've ever indicated to you that I wasn't a born-again, bible believing, God-fearing Christian. I'm not so, you're on the money, you must have the spiritual gift of discernment.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Since you're talking about me and my ilk I don't feel bad butting in.

Certain folks have been misconstruing virtually everything I say for over the past year; I keep repeating it in diffrent ways, but they still don't get it.

Movie Fan most of what you say is God's word is right! And when you're asked "Why" you answer BECAUSE God's word says it's right.

Good point; if we as a race were truly so smart, you'd think we'd have figured it out by now.

That's the same as saying if God is so omnipotent why doesn't he just prove he exists and save us all the trouble?

Yes, it is. Many scientists will tell you flat-out that standard policy is to throw out theories that don't work, and replace them. But with evolution, they haven't thought of anything to replace that theory, because throwing it out would leave a tremendous hole where the origins of life are concerned. They don't want to trash the evolution theory because at present, there's only one viable substitute: the Word of God...and to accept that would mean placing all of humanity under His authority, which they don't want to do.

The only substitue to replace the theory of evolution is the Bible? Are you serious? That's so ******ed I canot even muster a snarky response.

Therein lies the greatest thing about Christianity, at least in my opinion. All other faiths around the world teach, to some degree or another, that people must "earn" their way to God...be it through works, money, sacrifices, etc. by contrast, the Message of Christ is all about grace. God knows we don't deserve it, but He offers it anyway, because He loves us.

Flase statement is false. Not all faiths even believe in God, much less say you have to earn you way to meet him.

Precisely. In all truth, you can read the Bible until you're blue in the face, searching for answers till you drop...but if you're never willing to truly embrace it in your heart, you won't get anywhere.

Unfortunately, the standard reply from disbelievers often is, "well, it only applies if you believe the Bible". The only thing they have to fall back on is their belief that truth is relative, rather than absolute. Even Scripture tells of people being "willfully ignorant" where God is concerned, and describes itself as being "foolishness to the hard of heart".

Truth is not relative. And I don't think that most intelligent "disbelievers" would ever say that truth is relative, but what we would say is that you're only support is your own beliefs in your beliefs.

See you believe that what's in the bible is true, your only support for this is the bible.

It's like me saying, "I'm an honest person, give me all of your money for a very lucrative investment." Just because I say I'm honest doesn't mean I am, and just because the Bible says it's truth does not mean that it is truth.

 

[Backdrifter]

I believe in micro-evolution. But, I don't believe in macro-evolution.