Why did Jesus die for our sins?

[Admiral Thrawn]

So should you. Hitler was a Christian. He distanecd himself from the Catholic Church later, but he was baptised, had Communion, etc. And yes, some priests were sent to concentration camps, but very few. most priests in Germany at that time stood behind Hitler, as anti-Semitism was everywhere. Why do you think that the Vatican helped many Nazis escape?

 

The reason is the Catholic church wants to change location of it's central headquarters from Rome to Jerusalem, and by eliminating as many Jews as possible, it would fit into that agenda. They also wanted to destroy the Russian Orthodox church by funding the Russian Revolution.

 

Anyway linking Hitler and Catholic, does not do any more justice than linking Stalin to Atheism to prove Atheism is wrong. I fail to see the point of that statement.

 

Christians kill other Christians all the time, and they also persecute each other. To say that Hitler wasn't a Christian because he sent a few priests to concentration camps is nonsense. By the way, they weren't sent to camps because they were Christians, they were sent because they spoke out against the government. Lutherans were also sent to camps.

 

Hitler was no Christian.

[BlahBlahQueen]

I don't mind if you disagree with me. A lot of people do.

 

You said you respect me, but calling my religion a superstition negates that. That's what is insulting......

 

Well, I'm very sorry then, but I won't be a hypocrite either and pretend to see rationality where I don't see any.

[Admiral Thrawn]

I am not trying to be mean, but this attitude illustrates my point about religion being evil perfectly. It causes people to be anti-intellectual, and anti-science. Science is our only hope in this world.

 

Science is just a process of obtaining knowledge about the physical environment in an objective way. It does not provide any hope that would address spiritual problems, which is really the root of most of the problems out there.

 

Everything that you use every day--from paper towels to your car to you television to your computer--exists because of science. The exact same science that demonstrates that evolution is a facct, that we share a common ancestor with apes, that light travels at 186,000 miles per second.

 

Not really. Your chronic contention is that 'evolution' and what I would call 'normal empirical obervations about the present environment' and lumping them together under a scientific umbrella is something that is a point of contention. Many great scientists did not necessarily have to believe in evolution. Lots of scientists do not believe in the evolution theory. Believing in evolution is certainly not a prerequsitie to being a good scientist or inventor.

 

 

All of it. Why is it right in the areas that help you, or don't conflict with people's superstitions, but wrong when it does? Any and all arguments against science aren't arguments at all, either.

 

Again, not all scientistis and inventors believe in Evolution, if fact, it goes without saying that man dont. Perhaps this is a blind-spot in your arguements. Believing in evolution is not a prerequsite to being a good scientist.

 

So, now the United States is lagging so far behind other Western nations in science we look like a bunch of retards. Why? Because teaching basic science offends some people's religion, and they fight tooth and nail to keep facts from being taught. Great. Thanks.

 

The US is not lagging behind any other country in terms of invention. Would you like to suggest what country they are lagging behind in the WEst and prove it? You think Mexico, Central America, south America or Canada or the Caribbean is ahead in the Western Hemisphere?

[converse02]

Again, not all scientistis and inventors believe in Evolution, if fact, it goes without saying that man dont. Perhaps this is a blind-spot in your arguements. Believing in evolution is not a prerequsite to being a good scientist.

 

Admiral, while it is true that a VERY FEW scientists do not believe in evolution, the VAST VAST majority of prominent scientists on that planet understand that evolution is a CORNERSTONE in biology. I mean, there are scientists who believe in tarot cards and think Elvis is still alive. A MIT professor thinks space aliens are molesting him. I mean, really....We aren't talking about a few scientist, be the scientific community as a whole. 100% of universities prominent in the biological sciences teaches evolution something that really happened, because it did and it's useful. There is overwhelming evidence we evidence from an ape-like creature. Deal with it.

 

As someone who actually has a degree in higher education, can tell you that there is absolutely NO significant contraversy in biology that evolution is real. What other scientific theory exists that can possibly replace evolution? EVERY, repeat EVERY, university prominent in the sciences on the face of the PLANET, teaches evolution as a fact, from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Bejing, Oxford, Eton, Tokyo, Australia, to your local community college. Prominent scientific journals publish articles monthly on evolution. Which university prominent in the sciences can you possibly name that disagrees with evolution?

 

The whole intelligent design bit was designed to confuse non-scientists into thinking there is a significant debate. There isn't.

 

While "believing" in evolution doesn't make you a good scientist, every good scientist understands why evolution is good science. Every good scientist must understand the scientific method, and every good scientist will see that evolution follows the scientific method to the hilt. There is perhaps more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of gravity or atomic theory.

 

Read about evolution. Learn about the EVIDENCE of how humans are linked to every other living creature on the planet. Be amazed.

[converse02]

I don't mind if you disagree with me. A lot of people do.

 

You said you respect me, but calling my religion a superstition negates that. That's what is insulting......

 

How is calling your religion a superstition insulting?

 

From you own definition, a superstition is irrational.

 

What am I suppose to call a belief that says a virgin can give birth, snakes can talk, the universe was created in six days, the sky is a dome shaped "firmament," Noah fit every animal on Earth on an Ark, witches exist, gays once deserved to die, and a guy who somehow got himself executed by Jews/Romans is actually the savior of the universe?

 

This is as rational as Athena being born from the skull of Zeus.

[Moose]

Anyway, this is de-railing the OP's thread.

 

I'll respond to you in the, "Science and Religion":

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?t=81446&page=5

[Moai]

Well, nowhere in the Bible does it give any indication how old the Earth actually is. Whether it's 6,000 years or 4.5 billion as you say it is.

 

That's true. But that doesn't stop people from claiming that the Earth is 6,000 years old. And again, that number was arrived at by adding up all te ages of the characters in the Old Testement.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that you weren't there, I wasn't there, and we're relying on our little, (Extremely limited), minds to rationalize things we don't understand.

 

I have never been to France, but I am sure it is there, I wasn't alive during WWII but I am sure it happened. One need not be present at an event to know it happened. In a way, though, we actually were there. As I have mentioned, the Earth must be at least as old as an object resting on it, and the oldest thing found on the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. I would disagree that our minds are limited also. We are limitied as compared to what? There is also a difference between testing objects, observing the fossil record, examining DNA and all the rest an "rationalizing" something.

 

All in all, it doesn't matter how old the Earth is, why even waste our energy trying to convince ourselves we're smart enough to nail it down? When sooner or later, we'll have full understanding of ALL things that concerns us when we meet our Maker.

 

It is not a waste of energy to understand something--anything. Just "knowing" it is all the reason necessary. Beyond that, knowing how old the Earth is helps to understand a great many other things, including climate, the age of the Sun (which will eventually burn out), vulcanism, plate tectonics, etc.

 

We now know that the plates of the Earth are in constant motion, and that the Pacific Rim plate is moving counter-clockwise. Someday, San Francisco will be up around Juneau Alaska. The plate is moving really, really fast in the geologic sense. Knowing this, and that major earthquakes are imminent, helps people living in that region design buildings that can withstand earthquakes, and prepare for that eventuality. I believe that all life is valuable (with human life at the top), and that anything that we can do to keep people alive, healthy, and happy is a good thing.

 

If one were to follow the point of view you assert above, why study anything? Why look for vaccines, as people are going to die eventually anyway, and what happens when people "meet their maker" is much more important than virology. Why study history? We weren't there, it's in the past, and knowing why the Civil War happened won't help you when you are standing in front of God at the end.

 

I am curious. You mentioned in a previous post that you are all for knowledge, and learning things to make our lives better. Where exactly do you draw the line between things worth knowing and things that aren't? Just so you know, I am not asking to be judgmental or belittle you, I am actually just curious.

[Moai]

Science is just a process of obtaining knowledge about the physical environment in an objective way. It does not provide any hope that would address spiritual problems, which is really the root of most of the problems out there.

 

Spiritual problems are not at the root of viruses, bacteria, famine, or disaster. Sure, you could say that the reason man is inhumane to man is because of some spiritual probelm, but that's about the only thing I canthink of.

 

Not really. Your chronic contention is that 'evolution' and what I would call 'normal empirical obervations about the present environment' and lumping them together under a scientific umbrella is something that is a point of contention.

 

Not by anyone outside of the internet and a few cranks. Evolution being a fact is not debated AT ALL amongst 97% of all scientists on the planet. And the scientists that don't think it is a fact aren't in the field of biology. I can only think of two chemists--Sarafrti and Behe--who disagree. And Behe aknowledges that evolution is a fact, he just believes in "irreducible complexity", and his position has been shown to be fallacious.

 

All science is empirical observation.

 

Many great scientists did not necessarily have to believe in evolution. Lots of scientists do not believe in the evolution theory. Believing in evolution is certainly not a prerequsitie to being a good scientist or inventor.

 

Inventor, no. Scientist, yes. I cannot think of one "great scientist" who lived after 1880 or so that didn't accept evolution. And we have WAY more evidence for it now. It is true that a particle physicist doesn't need to understand punctuated equillibrium to do his job, but any science that remotely touches on biology or geology makes no sense except in light of evolution.

 

Again, not all scientistis and inventors believe in Evolution, if fact, it goes without saying that man dont. Perhaps this is a blind-spot in your arguements. Believing in evolution is not a prerequsite to being a good scientist.

 

See above. And yes, virtually every scientist everywhere accepts evolution. And it is a prerequisite for being a good sceintist working in the natural sciences.

 

A man could certainly event a widget and know nothing of biology, but good luck coming up with a new vaccine or antibiotic.

 

The US is not lagging behind any other country in terms of invention. Would you like to suggest what country they are lagging behind in the WEst and prove it? You think Mexico, Central America, south America or Canada or the Caribbean is ahead in the Western Hemisphere?

 

No, we are not behind those countries, but they are rapidly catching up. And we are behind Western Europe, Japan, and Israel. We are pathetically behind in stem-cell research, as well as in electronics and sadly, space technology. Thirty-eight percent of those holding a doctorate in the sciences in the United States are foriegn-born. I find that alarming, and horrific. Knowledge is power, and we have less and less of it. As we get dumber, we lose power.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Spiritual problems are not at the root of viruses, bacteria, famine, or disaster. Sure, you could say that the reason man is inhumane to man is because of some spiritual probelm, but that's about the only thing I canthink of.

 

Well, the fact that man is inhumane to other man certainly has a play in many of these problems. For example, the AIDS virus was speculated to be a man-made virus tested in Africa before it infected humans, and who knows how many other viruses? You have chemical and biological warfare. In terms of famine, if all the weath were distributed evenly in the world, and proper investments were made in Third World countries, and making sure everyone is economically accounted for, there would be no famine. Wars have killed many people. So, science can not account for these 'spiritual' problems within people, nor can it definitively address viruses and bacteria, as bacteria consistenly mutates and becomes resistent to anti-biotics.

 

At the end of the day, Keven Trudeau is right, and it all boils down to natural herbs and remedies for non-serious medical types of problems.

 

 

Not by anyone outside of the internet and a few cranks. Evolution being a fact is not debated AT ALL amongst 97% of all scientists on the planet. And the scientists that don't think it is a fact aren't in the field of biology. I can only think of two chemists--Sarafrti and Behe--who disagree. And Behe aknowledges that evolution is a fact, he just believes in "irreducible complexity", and his position has been shown to be fallacious.

 

There are plenty of scientists out there that believe in Creationalism, plenty of medical doctors, and plenty of surgeons that believe the same. People coming from Adventist, or other Christian Universities go on to contribute to science, within their respective fields. That 97% is a number pulled out of a hat, I think it's probably more like 60 or 70%.

 

All science is empirical observation.

 

Not the hocus-pocus Evolution science. Anyway, you are blurring the definations. Shall we say 'current' science as opposed to 'pre-historical' science, perhaps that should make the definations more clearer for the purpose of arguement. The science that Christians accept, is those that deal with real observable events in the CURRENT world, and CURRENT time, not those that speculate on some pre-historical world. The idea of humans coming from monkeys has no bearing or merit to any invention or concept within modern scientific knowledge, but is just a drawn out attempt by Atheists to validate their own beliefs through science. I would only concede on the point of Dinosaurs as being valid and nothing further. Therefore, I do not see this branch of science as being valid or authoritative.

 

Inventor, no. Scientist, yes. I cannot think of one "great scientist" who lived after 1880 or so that didn't accept evolution. And we have WAY more evidence for it now. It is true that a particle physicist doesn't need to understand punctuated equillibrium to do his job, but any science that remotely touches on biology or geology makes no sense except in light of evolution.

 

Albert Einstein?

 

 

No, we are not behind those countries, but they are rapidly catching up. And we are behind Western Europe, Japan, and Israel. We are pathetically behind in stem-cell research, as well as in electronics and sadly, space technology. Thirty-eight percent of those holding a doctorate in the sciences in the United States are foriegn-born. I find that alarming, and horrific. Knowledge is power, and we have less and less of it. As we get dumber, we lose power.

 

No. America makes the inventions. Japan just copy-cats what America has already invented, and if they do invent anything, it just doesn't go anywhere. Israel is not Atheistic, and Jews are still descendents of Abraham of whom God made a covenant with in the past. Western Europe could be construed as a place of a Christian background and heritage despite the fact it may be secularised.

[Moai]

Well, the fact that man is inhumane to other man certainly has a play in many of these problems. For example, the AIDS virus was speculated to be a man-made virus tested in Africa before it infected humans, and who knows how many other viruses?

 

Again, lack of science education rears its ugly head. There is no such thing as a made-made virus. The ability to manufacture a virus is far, far beyond our technological level at this point.

 

You have chemical and biological warfare. In terms of famine, if all the weath were distributed evenly in the world, and proper investments were made in Third World countries, and making sure everyone is economically accounted for, there would be no famine.

 

Untrue. First of all, to redistribute the wealth of the Earth would be a crime and a sin, namely stealing. Secondly, the reason there is famine is because of government. And lack of science education, believe it or not. The U.S. sent thousands of tons of genetically resistant corn to Africa, only to have the governments there let it rot because of misinformation about "franken-food." And thousands die.

 

Wars have killed many people. So, science can not account for these 'spiritual' problems within people, nor can it definitively address viruses and bacteria, as bacteria consistenly mutates and becomes resistent to anti-biotics.

 

Most wars are spiritual in nature. The current fracas in the Middle East, the hatred of Israel, etc. is all because of spirituality. And we do definitively address viruses. We have vaccines for small pox, polio, measles, and mumps, which even 100 years ago were deadly and killed millions. And the fact that bacteria mutates so readily is another great example of evolution. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

At the end of the day, Keven Trudeau is right, and it all boils down to natural herbs and remedies for non-serious medical types of problems.

 

Huh? Proper diet and excercise prevents most common ailments. Keven Trudeau is a felon, and a snake-oil salesman of the first order.

 

There are plenty of scientists out there that believe in Creationalism, plenty of medical doctors, and plenty of surgeons that believe the same. People coming from Adventist, or other Christian Universities go on to contribute to science, within their respective fields. That 97% is a number pulled out of a hat, I think it's probably more like 60 or 70%.

 

Nope. It isn't 97% of all scientists, it's 97% of all Nobel Prize-winning scientists. The guys that are right in a really big way. And yes, Adventist doctors don't accept evolution, mostly. I wouldn't go to one of their hospitals if I could help it, and they do virtually no research. Every biology department in every major university on the planet teaches evolution is a fact. I encourage you to read and understand it for yourself, as when you do you'll see that I am telling you the truth. Nobody who understands evolution rejects it.

 

Not the hocus-pocus Evolution science. Anyway, you are blurring the definations. Shall we say 'current' science as opposed to 'pre-historical' science, perhaps that should make the definations more clearer for the purpose of arguement. The science that Christians accept, is those that deal with real observable events in the CURRENT world, and CURRENT time, not those that speculate on some pre-historical world.

 

And some get upset when I call their beleifs superstitions! Way to call every working biologist on the planet, every paleontologist, every geologist and just about all the others in the natural sciences a magician. Sheesh.

 

Evolution and the study of biology is not "hocus-pocus". It follows the same rules of all the other sciences, and is just as reliable. And there is no such thing as "current" science. Science is conducted in a very specific way. If those rules are not followed, it isn't science. It has been this way since science was invented. And it isn't "speculation", it is based on empircal evidence you can see for yoruself. Are germs imaginary? You can't see them, but we know they are there.

 

The idea of humans coming from monkeys has no bearing or merit to any invention or concept within modern scientific knowledge, but is just a drawn out attempt by Atheists to validate their own beliefs through science.

 

We didn't come frmo monkeys, we share a common ancestor with monkeys. And we are apes. Look it up. Moreover, there is mountains of evidence to show that this is true. Just look at DNA evidence, for one. We are close to 98% the same as chimpanzees. How can this be if we do not have an ancestor in common?

 

I would only concede on the point of Dinosaurs as being valid and nothing further. Therefore, I do not see this branch of science as being valid or authoritative.

 

Ok, I don't see your perspective on Christianity as valid or authoritative. I will react as such from now on. Again I note that many CHristians are very sensitive when it comes to their faith, but when entire fields of study that take dedication, intelligence, and perseverance that many devote their lives to are called invalid and mythical it is no big deal, as if they can just wipe the slate of anything they don't like or understand.

 

Albert Einstein?

 

What about him?

 

No. America makes the inventions. Japan just copy-cats what America has already invented, and if they do invent anything, it just doesn't go anywhere. Israel is not Atheistic, and Jews are still descendents of Abraham of whom God made a covenant with in the past. Western Europe could be construed as a place of a Christian background and heritage despite the fact it may be secularised.

 

How many camera phones do you see around? It used to be true that Japan refined many creations of others, but they are a world leader in technology right now. They helped demonstrate that neutrinos change polarity, in fact.

 

Nobody said that Israel is atheistic. But they don't think that the Genesis account is literally trure, nor do they accept Jesus as the SOn of God. I fail to see any valid point.

[Moose]

The ability to manufacture a virus is far, far beyond our technological level at this point.

And so is proving we're from apes......you seem bright, can't you see my point?

First of all, to redistribute the wealth of the Earth would be a crime and a sin, namely stealing

HOW do you gather it's a crime or a sin? Because the wealthy have to step down?

And lack of science education, believe it or not.

Now this I do agree with. And to expand, man will NEVER have a FULL education in science.

And the fact that bacteria mutates so readily is another great example of evolution.

Geez.....it's bacteria's JOB to mutate, that's what GOD created it to do. It doesn't prove anything in regards to evolution.

And some get upset when I call their beleifs superstitions! Way to call every working biologist on the planet, every paleontologist, every geologist and just about all the others in the natural sciences a magician. Sheesh. AND: I encourage you to read and understand it for yourself, as when you do you'll see that I am telling you the truth. Nobody who understands evolution rejects it

Look....whenever I read anything from a scientist, their research is full of, "Evidence Suggests", "This theory could point to", "This could explain why", just about anything you read up on evolution is JAM PACK FULL of these phrases!!!! Is all BS hocus pocus mumbo jumbo chowvez......man is trying to play God conjuring up explainations for the unexplainable.......

It has been this way since science was invented.

There ya go. You just admitted that science was invented........and by who????? MAN......sorry, I'm not placing my life and soul in ANY man's hands besides Christ Himself.

And it isn't "speculation", it is based on empircal evidence you can see for yoruself. Are germs imaginary? You can't see them, but we know they are there

LISTEN TO YOURSELF!!! WHY IN THE WORLD CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS ALSO TRUE IN OUR FAITH???? Can you not get it through to yourself that Christian DON"T reject science??? Can't you just agree that Christians believe science just DOES NOT have ALL the friggin' answers??? That we don't feel the need to answer ALL the questions we know full well we'll never have an understanding of???

 

Your problem is you can't stand a when a person thinks and feels differently from you. Let it frickin' go would you???

We didn't come frmo monkeys, we share a common ancestor with monkeys. And we are apes. Look it up. Moreover, there is mountains of evidence to show that this is true. Just look at DNA evidence, for one. We are close to 98% the same as chimpanzees. How can this be if we do not have an ancestor in common?

This is soooo stupid!!! You might of came from an ape, but I didn't. If what you, (And these GREAT FRIGGIN" SCIENTISTS) say is so true, then why in the world are there STILL FRICKIN" MONKEYS AND APES RUNNING AROUND HUH???????? How come they haven't, "EVOLVED" into humans???

 

Man.........you're telling us if we'd read up on these things and have a better understanding of evolution, we'd agree.

 

I'm telling you, I've done all the reading I want to do on it. It's full of theory, possibilities, and hypothesis'......nothing concrete whatsoever, and there NEVER< EVER will be.

 

Cut us a break, and agree that you and Christians look at things differently, and move on......your being nothing but a pain in our side when you refuse to let us be the individuals we are.

 

OR, is it that you just can't stand to be told you're flat out WRONG......????

[flavius]

You'll never outlast Moai, Moosey. She does not see your point, any point. She is utterly impervious to dialogue. That's not what she's here for.

[Moai]

And so is proving we're from apes......you seem bright, can't you see my point?

 

Thanks, and it is easy to demonstrate that we share a common ancestor with apes. Asserting that there is no evidence doesn't mean there isn't any. We have DNA evidence, morphological evidence, and fossil evidence, all of which points to the conclusion that we share a common ancestor with apes. All you have to do is look in the mirror and a pitcure of one of the great apes to see that we are cousins.

 

HOW do you gather it's a crime or a sin? Because the wealthy have to step down?

 

No, because it would be taking something that doesn't belong to you. If the government steps in and takes your money to give it to someone else, that is essentially stealing. And stealing is a sin, no?

 

Now this I do agree with. And to expand, man will NEVER have a FULL education in science.Geez.....it's bacteria's JOB to mutate, that's what GOD created it to do.

 

If God created bacteria, then God created disease, not Satan. And it is true that we will never know anything, but again that doesn't mean that we don't know anything, or that we shouldn't try. Most of the questions we have come from finding answers.

 

It doesn't prove anything in regards to evolution.Look....whenever I read anything from a scientist, their research is full of, "Evidence Suggests", "This theory could point to", "This could explain why", just about anything you read up on evolution is JAM PACK FULL of these phrases!!!! Is all BS hocus pocus mumbo jumbo chowvez

 

Which "science" are you reading? That is the language of science. There is no proof in science. That is what makes it science, it is falsifiable. See, theories explain facts. "Why is the sky blue?" "Evidence suggests that oxygen molecules in the atmosphere refracts the short--blue--spectrum of light, making the sky blue." That explanation doesn't make the sky any less blue.

 

......man is trying to play God conjuring up explainations for the unexplainable.......There ya go. You just admitted that science was invented........and by who????? MAN......sorry, I'm not placing my life and soul in ANY man's hands besides Christ Himself.LISTEN TO YOURSELF!!! WHY IN THE WORLD CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS ALSO TRUE IN OUR FAITH???? Can you not get it through to yourself that Christian DON"T reject science??? Can't you just agree that Christians believe science just DOES NOT have ALL the friggin' answers???

 

Yes, you do reject science. You are rejecting it in this very post. Man invented language, too, and that is how the Bible is communicated to you. Does that mean that the Bible can't be trusted now?

 

We have evidence for germs, by the way.

 

Man invented science, and it works fabulously well. Science does hold all the answers to questions it can address. "Why are we here?" and "What is the reason for my existence?" are not scientific questions. Just because science does not address these questions it does not follow that science cannot be trusted, or that it is useless or evil or whatever.

 

Nothing answers those questions, not even religion. Your particular relgion works fine for you, but that may not work for your neighbor, or a Hindu or Muslim. If you are looking for truth in religion you are in way more trouble than I. If religion worked wo well, there wouldn't be so many of them, and people wouldn't kill each other over it. Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould disagreed a great deal over certain mechanisms regarding evolution (though they both think that evolution is a fact), and I am not aware of their followers killing each other because of it.

 

Both Dawkins and Gould had advanced degrees in biology and taught at two of the most prestigious universities inthe world--namely, Oxford and Harvard. For you to say that what they study and have degrees in, and what they say is mumbo-jumbo or whatever is insulting. Yet, when someone calls your faith mumbo-jumbo that is horrible and argumentative and just plain rude.

 

That we don't feel the need to answer ALL the questions we know full well we'll never have an understanding of??? Your problem is you can't stand a when a person thinks and feels differently from you. Let it frickin' go would you???This is soooo stupid!!!

 

There is a difference between thinking differently from me andnot acknowledging simple facts. Beyond that, when such a position is harmful to the education of our children it is incumbent upon me to challenge it.

 

You might of came from an ape, but I didn't. If what you, (And these GREAT FRIGGIN" SCIENTISTS) say is so true, then why in the world are there STILL FRICKIN" MONKEYS AND APES RUNNING AROUND HUH???????? How come they haven't, "EVOLVED" into humans???

 

You don't have to yell, and it is clear from your above statement that you don't understand the science involved at all. We share a common ancestor with apes. We did not "come from" apes. It isn't as if a gorilla had a human baby one day and so on. There are still monkeys and apes because they evolved concurrently with us. They have been evolving this whole time, just as we have.

 

Man.........you're telling us if we'd read up on these things and have a better understanding of evolution, we'd agree.

 

Exactly true. Your above non-question shows that to be true. Try it.

 

I'm telling you, I've done all the reading I want to do on it. It's full of theory, possibilities, and hypothesis'......nothing concrete whatsoever, and there NEVER< EVER will be.

 

Science is entirely hypotheses and theories. That is the whole point!

 

Cut us a break, and agree that you and Christians look at things differently, and move on......your being nothing but a pain in our side when you refuse to let us be the individuals we are.

 

You are free to think and believe whatever you want. But you can't call what you believe "science" or claim that your position about evolution and biology is in any way equal to the scientific position. If you would stay over there on the metaphysical side of the fence, everything would be fine. but no, you need your "faith" to somehow be concrete, and assert it into the realm of science--where it not only doesn't belong, it is shown to be false.

 

If we were to teach your particular creation story in bilogy class, we'd have to teach all of them. How much would children learn then?

 

OR, is it that you just can't stand to be told you're flat out WRONG......????

 

Calling me wrong and demonstrating me to be so are two different things. Funny how you have read "all you want to" about a subject, and yet somehow can tell jme what I am right or wrong about.

 

I recall a discussion we had on another thread where you accused me of being argumentative just for the sake of it, and that I was being insulting. Perhaps you should take the log out of your own eye before you look at the splinter in mine. Your above post was insulting, arrogant, ignorant, and mean. Not only that, you have shown yourself to be misinformed, and disinclined to even consider points made by someone else. I have done my best to be civil with you, and to acknowledge that while I do not share your faith, I respect your right to have it, but you do not give me the same respect. You even reported me to the moderators. I am not going to report you, as I can handle it, but in the future if things get heated i would hope you would refer to this post and check your tone.

 

You would also look a great deal less foolish if you did just a tad more reading onthe subject.

[Moai]

You'll never outlast Moai, Moosey. She does not see your point, any point. She is utterly impervious to dialogue. That's not what she's here for.

 

I am a he, and I do see his point, and I disagree with it. I have yet to read an arugment that would lead me to believe that Jesus dying for our sins makes sense. So far, I have only read rehashes of the same old arguments I have read for ages. I am more that willing to hear a new one, if there is one.

 

It as if just saying, "See? It makes sense to me" is enough to convince someone of something.

 

So far it seems that most Christians I have met on these pages reach a point when tey canno longer defend their position, so they begin to reiterateit, then get frustrated, then accuse their adversary (for lack of a better term) of being closed-minded or argumentative.

 

It takes two to tango, by the way. I could just as easily say that it is you who just don't seem to get it, and that you aren't here to listen to the opinions of others who don't share your view, you are just here to beat your faith into peoples' heads. But I didn't say that. I don't even think that.

 

I would also think that you would relish the chance to hone your skills so when you come up against someone who is perhaps not as well-versed as I you could win a soul for your side.

[Moai]

 

That should read "It is true that we don't EVERYTHING, or that...."

Sorry, missed my edit time....

[Moose]

I want to adress this first:

I recall a discussion we had on another thread where you accused me of being argumentative just for the sake of it, and that I was being insulting. Perhaps you should take the log out of your own eye before you look at the splinter in mine. Your above post was insulting, arrogant, ignorant, and mean. Not only that, you have shown yourself to be misinformed, and disinclined to even consider points made by someone else. I have done my best to be civil with you, and to acknowledge that while I do not share your faith, I respect your right to have it, but you do not give me the same respect. You even reported me to the moderators. I am not going to report you, as I can handle it, but in the future if things get heated i would hope you would refer to this post and check your tone.

Well, I apologize if I offended you. Really, I do. But your response proved my point. I don't recall reporting you to the mods either.....that's a harsh accusation.

We have DNA evidence, morphological evidence, and fossil evidence, all of which points to the conclusion that we share a common ancestor with apes. All you have to do is look in the mirror and a pitcure of one of the great apes to see that we are cousins.

I understand where you're coming from. I get it, I got it.....good.....ok? I don't need a mirror or a picture of an ape to understand where you're coming from.

 

What I'm telling you is that all we have is evidence. All we have are clues. All we have are likenesses.

 

You, and Dawkins, have nothing to offer above that. Even Einstein knew this. Even Dawkins, "Darwin's Rottweiler", ADMITS THIS!! He'll be the first to tell you atheists, and evolutionist are more evangelistic than us Christians.

 

BUT they can't make the, "sale", because of this FACT.

There is a difference between thinking differently from me andnot acknowledging simple facts. Beyond that, when such a position is harmful to the education of our children it is incumbent upon me to challenge it.

YOUR facts. Not mine. What you consider fact, and what I consider fact are 2 different things. You just can't let it go at that.

 

This position is far from harming my child's education. And this is why I choose to challenge you. It's not your place to decide what is harmful to my child, or anybody's child.

 

You need to leave that to the parents.

 

If you don't want your child believing in God.....so beit. I view that more harmful than excluding theory of evolution from their educational supper plate.

Science is entirely hypotheses and theories. That is the whole point!

I'm glad you see it my way finally. Educated GUESSES.....that's all science is.

 

I will not deny God and His Saving Grace based on what mere man defines as an, "educated guess".

[flavius]

You're response to Flavius' indictment against your argumentation would be great except for one thing. You cannot stay to the subject. Everything anyone says as an affirmative explanation of the original question provokes not thoughtful consideration, but just another tangetial tirade. Several times I acknowleged your points as acceptable starting points for dialog; each time you simply went off after another rabbit. That might make you feel smart, but it is not useful conversation. I don't expect you to capitulate on every point I make, even if I were universally right. But I do expect a rhetorical opponent to hear and consider the affirmative view.

 

As I said before, most adequately, "She does not see your point, any point. She is utterly impervious to dialogue. That's not what she's here for."

 

You must be very young.

[Moai]

I want to adress this first:Well, I apologize if I offended you. Really, I do. But your response proved my point. I don't recall reporting you to the mods either.....that's a harsh accusation.I understand where you're coming from. I get it, I got it.....good.....ok? I don't need a mirror or a picture of an ape to understand where you're coming from.

 

What I'm telling you is that all we have is evidence. All we have are clues. All we have are likenesses.

 

We agree. All we have is evidence.

 

You, and Dawkins, have nothing to offer above that. Even Einstein knew this. Even Dawkins, "Darwin's Rottweiler", ADMITS THIS!! He'll be the first to tell you atheists, and evolutionist are more evangelistic than us Christians.

 

I am not aware that there is anything else other than evidence. I am also not aware of Dawkins saying anything like "evolutionists" being evangelical, but maybe he did. I haven't read everything he has written. BUt I agree, evidence is everything.

 

BUT they can't make the, "sale", because of this FACT.YOUR facts. Not mine. What you consider fact, and what I consider fact are 2 different things. You just can't let it go at that.

 

Perhaps that is it exactly. I do not understand what you consider facts, and why you consider one thing a fact and another a "non-fact". I have mentioned it before, and perhaps my ineloquence is to blame, but the only thing I can figure is that you readily accept things as fact as long as they don't challenge your book. When they do, no amount of evidence will convince you. Not only that, you have admitted yourself that you don't even look at it. And that is fine, that is your right, you don't have to look at anything you don't want to.

 

It becomes an issue only because you have said you would like Creationism taught in public schools as science. It is not science, and will never be science. This isn't my opinion, and I am not "forcing" it on you or anyone else. Science has rules. If those rules aren't followed, it is not science.

 

I have asked you how you decide what is a fact and what isn't. I honestly cannot conceptualize how you do that. You see, the science that allowed us to go to the moon is the exact same as the science used to study evolution, or nuclear physics. They all operate the exact same way. So I ask, why is it that in all these other areas you accept it readily, but in this one area you do not, will not, and will not even consider it.

 

This position is far from harming my child's education. And this is why I choose to challenge you. It's not your place to decide what is harmful to my child, or anybody's child.

 

You need to leave that to the parents.

 

In some ways yes, and in some ways no. It is true that you can teach your child whatever you want. But my tax dollars pay for public schools. And teaching Creationism is the same as teaching your religion to them. Why can you teach your religion and Hindus or Buddhists cannot. DOn't you think that a Buddhist parent might be upset at having their local public school turned into Sunday school?

 

Beyond that, we owe our children the best science education we can offer. They deserve it, and if man is going to get anywhere it is probably the most important thing we can do for them.

 

If you don't want your child believing in God.....so beit. I view that more harmful than excluding theory of evolution from their educational supper plate.I'm glad you see it my way finally. Educated GUESSES.....that's all science is.

 

TO not teach them evolutino is to leave out the foundation of all the physical sciences. To not give them the opportunity to learn that in public school puts our children and a decided disadvantage.

 

Evolution is an important part of everyday life. DNA evidence relies on evolution, as no two people have the same genetic sequence.

 

But science is not guesses. One of the things that make a theory a theory is predictability. Before DNA was discovered, the theory of evoltuion suggested that all life comes from a common ancestor. DNA is found, and lo and behold DNA backs that claim up. Evolution becomes more solid.

 

 

Do you deny that the Earth is round? That we revolve around the Sun and not the other way around? I am not asking to be argumentative or contentious. The Bible suggests the opposite of those two ideas, and if you acknowledge that the Earth is round and the we orbit the Sun, I would like to know why you accept those facts and not others, since they are arrived at by the exact same method.

[Moai]

You're response to Flavius' indictment against your argumentation would be great except for one thing. You cannot stay to the subject.

 

Why do you refer to yourself in the third person? You must be very pretentious.

 

Everything anyone says as an affirmative explanation of the original question provokes not thoughtful consideration, but just another tangetial tirade.

 

Example?

 

Several times I acknowleged your points as acceptable starting points for dialog; each time you simply went off after another rabbit. That might make you feel smart, but it is not useful conversation. I don't expect you to capitulate on every point I make, even if I were universally right. But I do expect a rhetorical opponent to hear and consider the affirmative view.

 

Well, I have read what you have written, and I fail to see your point ofview backed up by scripture--I do see Moose's and Thrawn's that way. I can only respond to what you write. Are you confident that you are as articulate as you think you are? I have found many of your posts to be rambling and full of non sequiturs, but I just responded. I didn't feel it was incumbent upon me to insult you or grade your work. You obviously feel the need to do that for me. And that's cool, knock yourself out.

 

As I said before, most adequately, "She does not see your point, any point. She is utterly impervious to dialogue. That's not what she's here for."

 

You must be very young.

 

No, I am not very young, Wrong again. Is English your first language? I have reread your posts and in some of them it seems like you are not a native speaker.

[Moose]

What do you want me to say?

 

I do believe we all came from a common ancestor, just as you do. I just don't believe you and I see eye to eye just whom that ancestor is.

 

You choose to base your belief on the tiny bits of evidence, theories, and hypothesis gathered by men. I choose to base my belief on real witnesses.

 

You call it toe-ma-toe, I call it toe-may-toe.

 

You said yourself:

 

"teaching Creationism is the same as teaching your religion to them"

 

So who decides that creationism becomes the standard? And for what reasons?

 

Look, there is no doubt in my mind that these scientific discoveries that you believe to be fact, and my beliefs of a one True God Who created all mesh somewhere, and it all fits together like a giant puzzle.

 

You and I are just seeing different segments of the partially assembled picture.

 

I can't help that this drives you crazy. You can call me wrong all day and all night long. It's not going to change my opinion about it.

[Moai]

What do you want me to say?

 

I do believe we all came from a common ancestor, just as you do. I just don't believe you and I see eye to eye just whom that ancestor is.

 

And all life came from a common ancestor. I don't think you agree with that do you?

 

You choose to base your belief on the tiny bits of evidence, theories, and hypothesis gathered by men. I choose to base my belief on real witnesses.

 

Hmmm. There was no witness to God creating plants, light, the firmament, etc. According to Genesis. And both Genesis accounts do not agree, by the way.

 

Again, I find it interesting that you think that we have only tiny bits of evidence when we have mountains of it--you'd know that if you hadn't stopped reading, and theories explain facts.

 

You call it toe-ma-toe, I call it toe-may-toe.

 

You said yourself:

 

"teaching Creationism is the same as teaching your religion to them"

 

So who decides that creationism becomes the standard? And for what reasons?

 

I don't quite understand your above statement.

 

Look, there is no doubt in my mind that these scientific discoveries that you believe to be fact, and my beliefs of a one True God Who created all mesh somewhere, and it all fits together like a giant puzzle.

 

That is certainly possible. It is impossible to test for God, one way or the other. Isn't it possible that God left all of this evidence everywhere just so we'd find it?

 

You and I are just seeing different segments of the partially assembled picture.

 

I can't help that this drives you crazy. You can call me wrong all day and all night long. It's not going to change my opinion about it.

 

It doesn't drive me crazy. It fascinates me, actually.

[Admiral Thrawn]

And all life came from a common ancestor. I don't think you agree with that do you?

 

And where did the common ancestor come from?

 

Hmmm. There was no witness to God creating plants, light, the firmament, etc. According to Genesis. And both Genesis accounts do not agree, by the way.

 

To suggest everything that exists is attributable to random chance is just as absurd as anyone winning the lottery every single week. The probability is irrational. An intelligent creator had to create everything that is around.

[BlahBlahQueen]

The U.S. sent thousands of tons of genetically resistant corn to Africa, only to have the governments there let it rot because of misinformation about "franken-food." And thousands die.

 

Natural selection in its most basic form.

 

There are plenty of scientists out there that believe in Creationalism, plenty of medical doctors, and plenty of surgeons that believe the same. People coming from Adventist, or other Christian Universities go on to contribute to science, within their respective fields. That 97% is a number pulled out of a hat, I think it's probably more like 60 or 70%.

 

COUGHbullcrapCOUGH

 

Of course you *think* it's 60 or 70%. It "validates" your belief system. Go poll some scientists in real life; find out the truth. NO ONE I know in the sciences believes in "creationism". It would be ludicrous. Sure there are Christians in the sciences. They just don't eat up the bible literally.

[BlahBlahQueen]

And where did the common ancestor come from?

 

amino acids

[BlahBlahQueen]

You see, the science that allowed us to go to the moon is the exact same as the science used to study evolution, or nuclear physics. They all operate the exact same way.

 

Allow me to go off on that for a second.

 

I hear complaints that evolution is not real science because it can't be proven, many aspects are still theoretical, etc.

 

Physics never gets this kind of flack from the religion people. Why? Because it doesn't negate the beliefs they're so adamantly trying to validate. (Though according to them, they deny evolution because it's "bad science", not because it infringes on the integrity of their carefully-constructed reality.)

 

This is where it all comes down. If they were really after bad science, particle physics would be denounced before anything else.

 

Take the quark before the discovery of the J/ψ particle. Had anyone seen a quark before? No. Had anyone tracked a quark? Nope. In fact, at that time, quarks only existed as an abstraction theorized by physicists to explain the behavior of subatomic particles. Many even supposed the quark might be nothing more than a metaphor to explain a concept. But the quark was still science. It was "invented" by scientific minds with no agendas or delusions, as a possibility which plugged nicely into equations. The fact that it plugged into equations so well suggested strongly that it had some validity. And the fact that it was theorized after equations pointed in its direction made it good science by definition.

 

Then, big surprise, the J/ψ was discovered and led to the acceptance of quarks into the Standard Model of particle physics.

 

The moral of the story is that theorization does not invalidate science; in fact, it's its backbone, the process by which all great discoveries are made. Science, unlike religion, is not a blind faith. It's based on evidence and calculation. Whether you choose to ignore the evidence is up to you. If you have a strong enough need for dogma, you can accept or reject any aspect of reality as suits your agenda. That's your prerogative.