New Christians Have A Voice

[X-Punisher]

This dude should win the Christian of the Century Award

 

[Joe M.]

And, for that matter, why has the appendix become a useless organ that is sometimes the cause of ailment?

Maybe not so useless ...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html

The function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria populating the human digestive system, according to the study in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. There are more bacteria than human cells in the typical body. Most are good and help digest food.

But sometimes the flora of bacteria in the intestines die or are purged. Diseases such as cholera or amoebic dysentery would clear the gut of useful bacteria. The appendix's job is to reboot the digestive system in that case.

If a person's gut flora dies, it can usually be repopulated easily with germs they pick up from other people, he said. But before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn't as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy.

 

[Superhobo]

Maybe not so useless ...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html

Flaw there is, though, that the appendix doesn't work anymore.

 

[Bill]

I've called you rude because of the words you've used. So, I judged you by your words. If you're not being rude, let me know and we'll go from there.

As for the proof, you've gotta prove that there's something other than gravity because science (and what's just generally known) to my knowledge is that gravity is real even if there is still some understanding left in it. Evolution with mankind doesn't equal what we have with gravity and evolution has a challenge in creation.

1. In science, evolution is more supported than gravity.

2. In science, Creationism is not, in any way shape or form, a challenge to evolution. Not even close. Man is not the grading factor for evolution. There are many other organisms inhabiting this planet, of which man is only a small part.

Evolution states that there is a change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. This has been observed and is fact. I gave a quite extensive link for evidence of human evolution, which included creationist arguments. That is about all we can do. If you continue to ignore evidence when it is presented to you, then meaningful discussion is lost.

 

[rodhulk]

You seem to not understand it. You are trying to enforce a positive claim of gravity existing so that means the burden of proof is on your shoulders. And you yourself has set this unattainable level of 100% proven.

You accept gravity instead of evolution. Even though it does not live up to your standards of 100% proven.

Why is that?




EDIT: Might as well post the link that kinda.... sorta... shows that man has had some evolution. http://www.humboldt.edu/~mrc1/homo.shtml

Yeah, the other forms of the genus Homo, which shows that Homo sapiens were not a final product that were just poof'd into existence on a Friday a few thousand years ago.

1) I stated earlier that if you want to debate with me, you're choosing it and I told you that it was your time to answer some questions. I don't believe in having to follow any traditional question & answer mumbo jumbo you're trying to throw at me. It seems like you're afraid or something to answer my questions. It's as simple as this, if you have an answer to something (which you say you do, I mean, you must since you say you don't believe in gravity), say it.

2) Where did I say I need 100% proof of something as a standard? I don't always need 100% proof of something which is why I accept creation over evolution. Both aren't 100% but for me, creation is 99.9 %. 'Evolution' therefore, must be 100% to beat out creation. I choose gravity (even though it's not 100%) becuase I haven't found anything that opposes it or even challenges it. If you have something, say it. I'm sure you may have something, but I doubt something that really challenges our everyday thinking (ex. school books, etc....).

3) The evolution data you gave is old news from the previous thread and regardless of whether man has gone through some evolution or not does not mean man is here through evolution.

 

[rodhulk]

1. In science, evolution is more supported than gravity.

2. In science, Creationism is not, in any way shape or form, a challenge to evolution. Not even close. Man is not the grading factor for evolution. There are many other organisms inhabiting this planet, of which man is only a small part.

Evolution states that there is a change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. This has been observed and is fact. I gave a quite extensive link for evidence of human evolution, which included creationist arguments. That is about all we can do. If you continue to ignore evidence when it is presented to you, then meaningful discussion is lost.

1) With gravity, do we have anything that opposes gravity as creation does for evolution?

2) And in religion, I don't find evolution challenges creation enough to cause me to change my views on how man came to be.

I know your links and we went through them before. All I was searching for was if man came here through evolution as a fact. I got my answer. It was no. My argument was/is over with you, at least as for the evolution vs creation debate. If you find that missing link and the creation door gets closed, we could talk again.

 

[teseract]

1) With gravity, do we have anything that opposes gravity as creation does for evolution?

2) And in religion, I don't find evolution challenges creation enough to cause me to change my views on how man came to be.

I know your links and we went through them before. All I was searching for was if man came here through evolution as a fact. I got my answer. It was no. My argument was/is over with you, at least as for the evolution vs creation debate. If you find that missing link and the creation door gets closed, we could talk again.

Creationism is unscientific, it violates Occam's Razor.

 

[The Senator]

Hmmm... anyone else see a pattern here?

One side asks a question, and the other side-- instead of giving an answer or admitting they don't know-- attacks the other side for being disrespectful. The other side really shouldn't be talking, but continues to go back and forth about disrespect rather than answering the questions.

It makes for good entertainment, yes. But... where are the answers? Or the admission that there may not be any answers?

Disrespect aside, it's quite clear neither side is going to budge, so... how 'bout them answers?

 

[mrvlknight21]

Do me a favor.

Visit a couple of United Methodist Churches.


I feel as if I am at home there; I think you would as well.


Give it time. . . give it time.

Methodist.....aka sinner central. Youre going to hell!
Just kidding!

disclaimer:
(for those that dont know JStorm and I are personal friends and know one another in real life, not just SHH board life and while we disagree on some things, we have the same fundamental beliefs and will always be friends regardless of any inconsistencies on his part).

 

[jaguarr]

Methodist.....aka sinner central. Youre going to hell!
Just kidding!

disclaimer:
(for those that dont know JStorm and I are personal friends and know one another in real life, not just SHH board life and while we disagree on some things, we have the same fundamental beliefs and will always be friends regardless of any inconsistencies on his part).

Haha!

jag

 

[JStorm]

Methodist.....aka sinner central. Youre going to hell!
Just kidding!

disclaimer:
(for those that dont know JStorm and I are personal friends and know one another in real life, not just SHH board life and while we disagree on some things, we have the same fundamental beliefs and will always be friends regardless of any inconsistencies on his part).

Haha!

jag

You two can take this thread and shovel it.

 

[jaguarr]

You two can take this thread and shovel it.

You probably wouldn't like where we decided to move it to with our shovels.

jag

 

[LexCorp]

Well he seems like he has a level head on his shoulders.

 

[squeekness]

The evolution/creation debate hurts my brains.

 

[JStorm]

You probably wouldn't like where we decided to move it to with our shovels.

jag

I miss you too?


The impossible sit-up!

 

[Gilpesh]

1) I stated earlier that if you want to debate with me, you're choosing it and I told you that it was your time to answer some questions. I don't believe in having to follow any traditional question & answer mumbo jumbo you're trying to throw at me. It seems like you're afraid or something to answer my questions. It's as simple as this, if you have an answer to something (which you say you do, I mean, you must since you say you don't believe in gravity), say it.

If you're not going to argue correctly, then I take that as disrespect toward me and find offense in your statements.

And of course, intelligent falling is the answer you are demanding out of me, even though you are trying to prove a positive claim. God decides what falls and what ascends according to His Will. That's proven 100% over gravity's circumstantial evidence.

2) Where did I say I need 100% proof of something as a standard? I don't always need 100% proof of something which is why I accept creation over evolution. Both aren't 100% but for me, creation is 99.9 %. 'Evolution' therefore, must be 100% to beat out creation. I choose gravity (even though it's not 100%) becuase I haven't found anything that opposes it or even challenges it. If you have something, say it. I'm sure you may have something, but I doubt something that really challenges our everyday thinking (ex. school books, etc....).

Saying that something is not 100% proven and trying to get people to agree with it, means that is your level of acceptance and thus should be your base over everything. Unless you have a bias that you need to own up to that is clouding your judgment on the issue.

And as I have just said. Intelligent falling has been proven 99.9% of the time and overrules anything that science has come up with. Prove gravity 100%.

3) The evolution data you gave is old news from the previous thread and regardless of whether man has gone through some evolution or not does not mean man is here through evolution.

Again with the previous thread that has been removed and so can no longer be checked. And did you really just say that....

regardless of whether man has gone through some evolution or not does not mean man is here through evolution.

You did. Wow.

 

[JStorm]

You did. Wow.

One can have an opinion on this matter.

 

[Gilpesh]

One can have an opinion on this matter.

Well... that just seems like a problem with logic to on one hand say that man has gone through evolution... to then say even if that is true, man is not here because of it.

If we are classified as Homo sapiens that means we evolved from Homo erectus. So that means we are here because of evolution.

 

[JStorm]

Well... that just seems like a problem with logic to on one hand say that man has gone through evolution... to then say even if that is true, man is not here because of it.

If we are classified as Homo sapiens that means we evolved from Homo erectus. So that means we are here because of evolution.

Understood.

But the "You did. Wow," statements implies that you mock his beliefs and refuse to "see his point of view."


If real-life scientist can have educated and mature conversation with all points of view, why can't we?

Jennings and Darrow got along.

 

[Gilpesh]

Understood.

But the "You did. Wow," statements implies that you mock his beliefs and refuse to "see his point of view."

I mock because that shows a hole in logic. To one second concede that man has gone through evolution... to then say that fact has nothing to do with the issue that man could be here from evolution. Seeing as you're "teacher shoving knowledge in your head" smart and I am at best "teacher said it only I was doodling in my notebook and sometimes have to google" smart , would that be considered a logical fallacy?

If real-life scientist can have educated and mature conversation with all points of view, why can't we?

Jennings and Darrow got along.

I was trying. But he kept calling me disrespectful when I was simply trying to get answers regarding gravity. And if real-life scientists were having educated and mature conversations, they would side with the fact that if trying to prove a positive argument that person has the burden of proof put on them.

 

[bell110]

Damn, 18 pages in 3 days. I never had a chance to chime in. How did this turn into a creation/evolution debate.

I think the author of this book is correct. I am the same type of christian.

 

[JStorm]

Gilpesh should change his name to Empirical.

 

[Gilpesh]

Gilpesh should change his name to Empirical.

You should change your name to Russell Ziskey.

 

[JStorm]

I am fond of my name.

Tell me, Empirical, did you read the initial post, and the article, and what did you think?

 

[Gilpesh]

I am fond of my name.

Stripes references!

Tell me, Empirical, did you read the initial post, and the article, and what did you think?

I liked it!

It seems like the New Christians should take over for the old ones. As I said before this thread devolved into the old classics of evolution/homosexuality debating, I would finally shut up about religion because New Christians seem to really understand what the point was of the bible and Jesus' teachings.