I haven't read the whole thread, but I assume this has already been posted: [video=youtube;p6z0Zay9itk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6z0Zay9itk[/video]
And ironically you make a joke about it. We can see just how serious you are about your Faith. How can I take you seriously, when you haven't even explained true evolution; the backbone of Atheism? You question the moral or "logic" of faith driven Religion. Maybe you should channel some of that energy in proving the Scam known as evolution? See the difference between Christians, or even Religious people are their pursuit of understanding or knowing their own Philosophy. Atheists just use "Hey well scientists and scholars believe it, so it must be true" Do you know that some people are heavily involved with certain types of Religions, then go deep into that religion and discover it's got holes in it? They do further research and find a faith that best suits them. Have you been on this enlightened Journey? If you say you don't care, then I suppose you really can't judge those with Faith that pursue their Religion can we?
well that was coherent. and again note that many theists believe in evolution, almost half of all scientists are religious, and at least some atheists don't believe in evolution. you're creating a false dichotomy here. it's not the point of evolutionary theory or the goal of evolutionary scientists to disprove god.
Dionysus and Minthra are both described in the video I already posted. And what do you know about Justin Martyr? First off, he was born almost a century after the events of Jesus and His crucifixion took place and he was never an eyewitness like the writers of the Gospels and the Epistles claimed to be. During that time period Jews were persecuting Christians heavily so I highly doubt they would pass off genuine information regarding the life of Jesus. It's basically the same thing that's happening today and over the past 2,000 years. People have been trying to skew and undermine the Gospel message since the very beginning. In order to believe this you must hold this man's opinion above all the historical Biblical and extra-Biblical documents we have of Jesus Christ, the Bible and a whole and its fulfilled prophecies, and the spread of early Christianity. I asked this before and will ask again: Do you believe Jesus existed? If not, who made Him up and why did they do it? Also, how could they have such unbelievable success spreading the message of a man who never even existed? It makes no sense. If the disciples and apostles of Jesus knew what they were spreading to be a lie, why would they undergo persecution and even death to spread their faith? What this would turn out to be is the greatest conspiracy theory ever known to man, one with no evidence whatsoever I might add. And the other clip you provided is nothing more than this man's opinion, not to mention he seems to have very little knowledge of what it says in the Bible and what he does know seems a little dishonest. If you want truth, I recommend you read the New Testament yourself if you haven't already and form your own opinion. I also recommend reading the book of Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs and the book of Isaiah. Saying a prayer to God to reveal Himself in His Word is worth a try to. This is if you are genuinely interested. To paraphrase, micro evolution is an example of a species adapting to its environment over time with subtle changes. Macro evolution is literally animals transforming into an entirely new and different species. Basically they say we were all sea critters once which somehow originated from single celled organisms and then in turn produced every variety of land animal we see today. The amount of faith it takes to believe this is incredible to me seeing the irreducible complexity of nature and all its functions. For complex biological structures to come from a random, chaotic cosmic accident is zero. Not to mention that there is no evidence whatsoever for abiogenesis (life starting on its own) or macro evolution.
Well I was just asking him, but I can ask you the same question. Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe there is a God? If you don't believe in either, then how were we created? I'm not asking if you believe in my God either. I am talking about a "Supernatural higher being"
Actually at least two of the Gospels make no claim to be by eyewitnesses (which is good, because they're full of contradictions, as everyone knows). It's generally accepted that Mark is the first, Matthew and Luke use Mark and one other work ("Q") and that John is just totally nutty, which is why it disagrees with the others on so many details. They were all included (instead of one coherent story) because each had its political base. One is pro-woman but anti-Jew (Luke, I think, but I can't remember) and another is much more pro-Jew and so on. Do you mean was there a historical individual, possibly called Jesus, who roamed around preaching and who possibly had some disciples? Sure - there were tons of them. Do I believe that he was the son of God and rose again after three days? Of course not. I'm with Thomas Jefferson on that one. Which part of "Him"? Who made up Robin Hood? Who made up King Arthur? Who made up Dionysus? Who cares? Which one are you talking about? If you mean the narrator/guy who put together the film "The God Who Wasn't There" (also the writer of the musical "Batboy"), then I agree he goes a bit over the top. But he does have an axe to grind, as he was raised a fundamentalist. If he doesn't know the bible that well, it wouldn't be all that surprising. The Old Testament is much more fun. Who was it that was forced to read the Bible for a bet, and half way through just threw it down and said "isn't God a shit!" Winston Churchill's son, I think. What I want to know is, did Judas die by hanging (Matthew 27:5) or did he die by falling and bursting open (Acts 1:18)? I like the bursting open one much better: he's strutting around in the field he's just bought with his 30 pieces of silver and just trips and SPLURCH! The other one makes him sound like such a Debbie Downer. He should cheer up - after all, if it wasn't for him, all of humankind wouldn't have been saved! In what? Hmm. This sounds like one of those "strategically elastic" definitions mentioned here: What are your views on ring species? Don't they rather threaten the idea of a species one which the purported distinction between macro- and micro-evolution depends?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution Since we like WikiPedia. I saw one quote in an earlier post that Evolution should be some steady process. Bullshit. There are all sorts of environmental conditions that might speed things along for some species or slow them down for others. Life first appeared 4B years ago, pretty not very recent in the geologic time scale. It took 1.5B years for that early life to convert CO2 to O2 in quantities enough for life that breathed oxygen to evolve and survive. Yet it took about 65M years for Man to evolve from rodents. And there are numerous examples of fossils found that do bridge two species with significant differences in traits.
i don't know which they you are referring to, but i don't pretend to know how life or the universe started. only that speciation occurs through common descent.
I think there is merit to the claim science is a form of religion. It has it's own creation stories and even apocalyptic stories. There's an evangical nature to it, and even a "you'll burn in hell if you don't stop AGW."
Then why place such condemnation to Creation? You base your ideology on science and are adamant about proving Christianity being a shame. Look at Denny here. You can see or "Feel" that he understand's "His Faith" of science and can explain it. This is how I can respectively have a nice debate. One side has deep faith in their belief, while I have deep faith in mine. So my advice, if you even care to accept it, is "Before you are so quick to judge a Religion or Faith; you may want to use that energy to support your own".
been over this. you may have an issue with al gore and the liberal press, and possibly some individual scientists who may or may not have political agendas, but you have no reason to fault the scientific method itself or the scientific community as a whole.
I am quite sure the Bible was written by men and is difficult to accept it as historical truth. It's a good collection of stories with morals. Creationism is silly to me because I see TWO creation stories in the Bible - which one am I supposed to believe? There's the six days creation story and the garden of Eden one.
Again with the out-of-context "contradictions". And your base your opinions on what exactly? What agenda were they trying push? So I ask you again, what was the motive behind making up the stories? Political power? So they could be killed and martyred for their known fabricated lie? Christianity has 2.5 billion adherents in the world today who believe in Jesus is Lord so I'm not sure how that correlates to "Robin hood". That argument is completely bunk especially when there is evidence and archaeology backing up the events that happened in the Bible. All three videos you posted seem intellectually dishonest to me. I quoted books from the Old Testament, if you had knowledge of the Bible you'd know that. Why don't you form your own opinion instead of going off what others have to say? http://bible.cc/acts/1-18.htm Truth. Sorry, macro evolution has never been observed or proven. Ever. That's why it's still a theory, one that's passed on as fact. Consider the source. Ring species are an example of micro evolution if anything. Just like bacteria mutating into a new form after being exposed to certain toxins (which many evolutionists claim to be macro evolution in action). One species "evolving" into another has no proof or backing whatsoever
