CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Without using a citation from the Christian Bible, the Satanic Bible, or any religious text, I challenge anyone here, including FromWithin to provide an article or interview with the Pope where the Pope denies the quote in the article or debunk it otherwise. References to a religious text will be banned because if God exists and he can lead you to the Bible as evidence, he should be able to lead you to OTHER evidence, even according to my rules. I dare religious fanatics on this site to cite a CNN article or one from a credible, modern, well known news station, that has amy evidence the Pope doesn't believe in evolution. The only other thing allowed is a legitimate recording of interview with the Pope, but even then no evidence is allowed to be related to a religiou text for the recording and the record must come from a major news station, not your own mouth or the Bible. I dare God to give you NONBIBLICAL, and non-religious evidence that actually sounds convincing to everyone that the Pope does not believe in evolution and that strictly comes from a major MODERN news station or credible web site that hasn't existed for more than 200 years.
Whether or not the Bible is correct, there's no way to cite any religous text that follows the rules. If you do not you will be banned.
Technically, whole of existence is foolish, and the religious people have the luxury to justify it using fantasies. They'd as well worship Twilight or 50 Shades if they like what it says, and reject all evidence otherwise.
But still, this luxury is not available for those of us who won't ever be willing to worship fantasies. So, based on the value it provides, religion is more true than science.
That's the most foolish thing about existence - that thinking fantasies to be real is actually a valid excuse for it all.
Your fantasy is believing you have the right to exist outside of Hell. One day you will wake up and realize you were wrong or you will wake up in Hell.
God created us for Himself to enjoy. He created us because He is good and loves to give life; by creating us in His own image He glorifies Himself as the giver of all good things.
I do not have an argument, I stand on the truth. The truth speaks for itself, it's up to you to accept it or reject it.
That depends on what is your basic criteria for considering something foolish. What is it?
Truth is not so simple. If something provides more value to believe than something else, it qualifies as a form of truth. Not the one we directly think of, though, but that doesn't matter.
And what good sense can you make of all existence that is and has ever been?
True, as in having a higher truth value. I doubt you'd advocate another use of the word.
It doesn't matter to me because I'm not appealing to your preferable use of language, and thus it is of no consequence what meaning you like to use of words. That way, nothing can ever be communicated.
And what good sense can you make of all existence that is and has ever been?
It's your job to give your reasoning for your original claim. I don't know how anyone who knows any physics can claim existence has no sense.
True, as in having a higher truth value. I doubt you'd advocate another use of the word.
I would advocate you use the correct terminology. Fantasies don't have a higher truth value.
It doesn't matter to me because I'm not appealing to your preferable use of language, and thus it is of no consequence what meaning you like to use of words. That way, nothing can ever be communicated.
You think ignoring the way we use words is the way to communicate? That's the exact opposite way things work.
It would all be as well if we weren't sentient - what sense do you make of that?
It is a way in which the terms can be used. And from the context - that's the only valid meaning. Even then I made it obvious with an introductory. And then if you are to complain about not understanding it - that is of no consequence. I think that the way you want to use words is worthless against what meaning they actually represent.
But you seem strangely confident about the meaning of life. Tell, what is the existential proof you have stumbled upon, and I shall see to it that you get the recognition you deserve.
I hate it when peasants want to argue about the nature of truth. It's annoying. And you refuse to learn by yourself.
Return, peasant, I won't be holding your finger to direct you to information openly available. (That word missing isn't intentional, though. I meant an introductory sentence, but it probably got deleted by mistake.)
I wrote an introductory sentence so that a peasant like you can better understand what I'm talking about, yet you refuse to learn and begin complaining.
Okay, I will hold your finger and direct you to information that is already openly available for now, but don't reply to this.
I am reading through your source material and I notice it keeps saying something along the lines of corresponding to facts, not gut feeling. Can you please elaborate on which section says that stories don't have to have facts in order to be true?
Yes, because that's what the first section is about. If you are in hurry, skip past the correspondence theories. In case you didn't notice, it isn't a small article.
The next one does, but it is described rather vaguely in SEP. But, you might as well do the search on it yourself. As I said, I have failed to debate properly and winning now doesn't matter at all to me. It'd still be in the same series of failures regardless of your now accepting or rejecting the proposition.
So, you win. I resign.
There is no system of badges on this site, else I could send you one as the trophy.
Not really wrong in the traditional sense. But I don't usually give up. Here, the authors of articles seem biased against it, so it has not received the coverage it deserves.
Let's see... I can argue for the validity of the theory, though.
If I'm to make that claim, then it isn't really a paradox, but serves only as an example.
Yes, it does make it a truth. (But due to the implied meanings by default, I'd advise against using 'truth' too loosely. It isn't technically wrong either way, though.)
No, I don't think I'd believe it, because it isn't a useful belief for me. (Not to mention that it isn't correspondent with reality or coherent in itself.)
Your attitude makes it seem like you are trying to make arguments, but your complete lack of arguments make you an asshole. So, does that come naturally to you or did you go somewhere to learn how?
I guess I failed here. My goal was to be persuasive, and yet in this thread I've been fighting over the nature of truth in an inflexible manner (and a terrible one at that).
If only I were better prepared in the case my opponent and the readers might not be familiar at all with the topic...so that rather than giving reference, I can use the arguments.
I might win this specific topic by sheer support, but I have failed to be able to win by myself. Since it doesn't matter that way to me, I surrender in this topic.
I guess I shouldn't be playing around with arguments like that.
Our existence might make sense in some isolated systems. But those systems themselves are worthless.
Fantasies as a useful thing to believe in is just a result that follows. There is a causal error in the relationship you mentioned. That was a demonstration of existence being foolish, rather than a cause.
The isolated systems are those you directly interact with. For example, your existence might have some value, and thus make some sense, in your workplace, friend circle and family. Everything that people say 'gives meaning to your existence' qualifies as an isolated system here.
Beyond those systems, you would be worthless.
Another example would be the result we discussed earlier. Thinking that your existence matters beyond any isolated systems to the universal system makes you feel that it actually makes sense. That is the basis of many fantasies people like to believe in - except other, more mundane motives.
Also, this would lie on the other extreme end to something like biocentrism.
You are conflating individual existences with existence as a whole. I don't see anything nonsensical about individuals trying to make the most out of their own existence.
I'm just assigning individual existence a place in existence as a whole. I don't think comparing them should be unacceptable.
And that's specifically my claim - an existence has meaning only in those miniscule systems, which themselves follow the same rule, until we reach the final, worthless systems, or existence as a whole if you prefer to call it that.
Unless your perception is limited till some system in the process, you'd see what I mean - that existence makes no sense.
It isn't about the basic rules followed for evaluating existence - and finding them to be coherent till the final, 'universal existential set'.
The following of same rule is an approximation, though. Non-sentient systems don't work the way sentient ones do, but since even they are made of sentient systems, they behave in about the same way. But still, a collective sentience wouldn't really behave exactly as an individual sentience would.
The other rules work because distribution of existential value is branched (somewhat). That isn't an essential feature.
I'm not calling existence so incoherent with itself that absolutely nothing will connect to anything else logically. That isn't even a possibility for things that seem to think on their own. Thus, I wonder whether you meant something.
Read the next few sentences where I expanded upon the similarity in their behaviour.
That was meant for you saying that 'it can follow a pattern, so it all makes sense'.
Your arguments make it seem like you're joking. In that case, rather than arguing for something as wide as 'Existence makes no sense', I'm narrowing it down to one much more particular result - 'All existence is worthless.'
I created a system that gives result of humans as 'partially sentient'. I won't go into details right now (it doesn't seem complete, and isn't yet fit for posting here), it currently revolves around the famous statement of Descartes and the problem of free will.
In that case, rather than arguing for something as wide as 'Existence makes no sense', I'm narrowing it down to one much more particular result - 'All existence is worthless.'
"P : Existence makes no sense. (And yes, it isn't about the chemical reactions going on inside bodies.)"
You abandoned your premise and yet you keep arguing for your conclusion. That is illogical. Foolishness and worth are 2 different things. You "narrowing" your scope is completely changing the subject.
(it doesn't seem complete, and isn't yet fit for posting here)
Post it. Nothing you have posted so far has been fit for posting.
Yes, then, I'm completely changing the subject, if that's what it seems like to you.
It making no sense isn't a direct conclusion. But I'll be publishing my results in a complete form when they're complete - I'm not a coward. That way, you can see the criteria I take for concluding that existence makes no sense and criticise it, or I'll abandon it if it seems illogical. But, it being worthless is among them right now, and thus it isn't a complete change of topic. Though, of course, I'm unaffected if you can't be convinced about the topics being related.
For the proof you ask, are you aware of the 2 things I wrote about its sources? If not, read about what they are, before which I can't explain to you how we're partially sentient. That'd be like explaining a squirrel how it evolved.
Well, I didn't use sense as in 'what are the reactions accompanying it' or how does our existing contributes to some other things that would have continued either way. Those questions aren't definitive enough. I'm talking about human existence; it is closer to our being than the reactions unrelated to it.
But it's a big claim to make, and should have a proof worthy of it. The entire proof, including the demonstrations, will be long and hard.
I've already demonstrated how all existence is worthless, but that's a small part of the overall thing. And then there's the more mundane things that must be attended to.
Another implication is that no one is ever really doing anything. It isn't a narrow claim at all, but I can't defend the entirety of it against every possible argument. Ideally, I'd be bouncing it off you right now to decide upon its final nature.
Though the other part is easier. If you understand what the free will problem is and what Descartes meant when he said 'I think, therefore I am', I can explain how we are, at best, partially sentient. Since we even feel sentient, we are, at least, partially sentient, and thus we are partially sentient.
More inconsistencies. This isn't looking like it will ever get better.
If you understand what the free will problem is and what Descartes meant when he said 'I think, therefore I am', I can explain how we are, at best, partially sentient. Since we even feel sentient, we are, at least, partially sentient, and thus we are partially sentient.
So, you aren't up to the challenge of explaining what you describe in this debate. Cool.
Because evolution explains "creation" not "adaptation."
Adaptation means to form change in response to change, for survival by adapting to those changes. And the kicker to evolution is adapting doesnt always result in recovery of the species. Slight changes yes, but any significant change drastic enough to cause physical adaptations would result in death even extinction.
Evolution is used as a term referring to creation of the first of living things, by which self assembling occurs creating an equilibrium in nature and the environment that didnt already exist.
Adaptation is already formed species and any adaptive features are for survival in response to changes.
Adaptation isnt initiating its responsive! It is not in creation of an environment an then fostering a creation of living things "adapting" by selections to thrive to evolve into other living things or living things in general. Why would iron adapt if its not living to begin with? Does an iron fence adapt or evolve?
So if the items were not living then by what means or reason or purpose did they adapt? Did they want to create something? Does an iron fence create?
Adaptive is making an alteration specific to survival of change. But Adaptive is to environment is as learning a new skill is to within a current carreer or already established area of skill set.
Evolution defines the environment and selects by guess what will trive till the triving expand grabbing and joining other living elements and against odds and entropy, producing a new developed species designed to trive in the environment.
Adaptation would be over time changing coloring of skin becoming more stable to the changed environment. Adaptation is not creating a being with skin from interpreting the environment by knowing what will thrive by a guess.
We do not see evolution. We see adaptation. Evolution science always distinguished the two, they reinvent the story often. Now they redefine adaptation.
Evolution is not possible because elements would have to be perfect by design, mapped out. And then that would mean evolution involves intelligent design. Its either by someone or its by nothing, but you cant have it both ways.
DNA requires memory, so if the previous 1st evolving host dies, then does he have living DNA memory to pass on, for his offspring to improve? Its chicken and the egg with neither chicken or egg to begin with.
So if oxygenization destroys the first elements of protiens then how do they have life. And if they are lucky, and happen to grow without oxygenization hindering them, but then water liquid or vapor destroys it, then how does it overcome this never ending volley?
So they grew 2 or three amino acids, but they leave out the destructive properties that they really cant isoate from, because cell walls work as designed. These would have to form without a cell wall to which keeps out harm yet shares information.
So this is the foundational reason why evolution is nonsense.
Adaptation goes from being formed and adapting. The illusion that DNA for an eye found its way to many species is simplistic faith based on many assumptions. And there is no reasonable evidence proving it, actually the opposite is true, science disproves it as a possibility.
Whereas God is provable by science probability and human experience, as well as logic and reasonable understanding of everything around us.
Thank you for your response. Hopefully you will read mine and learn what you have been misinterpreting this whole time.
Because evolution explains "creation" not "adaptation."
Not actual evolution. Evolution is the study of the change in species over time. The adaptations.
Adaptation means to form change in response to change, for survival by adapting to those changes. And the kicker to evolution is adapting doesnt always result in recovery of the species. Slight changes yes, but any significant change drastic enough to cause physical adaptations would result in death even extinction.
Evolution is the study of surviving changes in environment. The fact that physical adaptations exist shows that you are wrong about extinction.
Evolution is used as a term referring to creation of the first of living things,
By you it is used that way. Not by science.
by which self assembling occurs creating an equilibrium in nature and the environment that didnt already exist.
You are describing the stories in the Bible.
Adaptation is already formed species and any adaptive features are for survival in response to changes.
The biological study of that process is known as evolution.
Adaptation isnt initiating its responsive!
Evolving is responsive.
! It is not in creation of an environment an then fostering a creation of living things
Right, that's the creation myth.
Why would iron adapt if its not living to begin with? Does an iron fence adapt or evolve?
That's exactly why evolution is part of biology and not oat of chemistry.
So if the items were not living then by what means or reason or purpose did they adapt?
Evolution does not encompass the adaptation of non living things. That's abiogenesis.
Adaptive is making an alteration specific to survival of change. But Adaptive is to environment is as learning a new skill is to within a current carreer or already established area of skill set.
Except we see new skill sets come into existence. The creature exists, but not the skill set.
Evolution defines the environment and selects by guess what will trive till the triving expand grabbing and joining other living elements and against odds and entropy, producing a new developed species designed to trive in the environment
It isn't against odds though. Evolution does not select by guessing. The selection process is done by the environment in a specific way. The changes are guessed and the environment acts on those guesses.
Adaptation would be over time changing coloring of skin becoming more stable to the changed environment. Adaptation is not creating a being with skin from interpreting the environment by knowing what will thrive by a guess.
You are only thinking straight ahead in one direction. You have to add to it. First you select for skin color. Then you select for skin thickness. Then before you know it you have skin with many different properties.
We do not see evolution.
Except you personally described it multiple times in this argument. Even you see it.
Evolution science always distinguished the two, they reinvent the story often. Now they redefine adaptation.
They distinguished the 2 and you sill don't understand. That is not a problem with evolution. Are sects of Christianity still part of Christianity? We distinguish between Baptists and Protestants.
Evolution is not possible because elements would have to be perfect by design, mapped out.
No, that's the creation myth.
And then that would mean evolution involves intelligent design.
See? Even you realize you aren't talking about evolution.
DNA requires memory
Nope.
Its chicken and the egg with neither chicken or egg to begin with.
Doesn't that make you think that maybe you don't have a clue what you are talking about?
So if oxygenization destroys the first elements of protiens then how do they have life. And if they are lucky, and happen to grow without oxygenization hindering them, but then water liquid or vapor destroys it, then how does it overcome this never ending volley?
You not knowing how abiogenesis works does not invalidate evolution ... still.
So this is the foundational reason why evolution is nonsense.
No, that's the foundational reason why abiogenesis is nonsense.
Adaptation goes from being formed and adapting.
Just like evolution describes.
Whereas God is provable by science probability and human experience, as well as logic and reasonable understanding of everything around us.
Probability shows that God is impossible. Human experience has shown that everything we have ever attributed to God was due to something else. Logic says that God doesn't exist (Occam's Razor). And, the well known fact that we basically have no reasonable understanding of anything around us points to us being wrong and God not actually existing.
Me - Evolution defines the environment and selects by guess what will trive till the triving expand grabbing and joining other living elements and against odds and entropy, producing a new developed species designed to trive in the environment
Cartman - It isn't against odds though. Evolution does not select by guessing. The selection process is done by the environment in a specific way. The changes are guessed and the environment acts on those guesses.
Me - There was nothing to select from on day 1. Whatever happened on that day had no life forms to select from!
Laws of physics rejects evolutionism. I have no idea what is up with Steven Hawkins. God was banging on the mans door for a long time. It will be interesting to see what God does with Him during the end times.
God gave him the chance to educate the idiots of this world. You should be worried about ignoring someone ad smart as him. He is yet another highly educated person you feel you are more knowledgeable than. Doesn't that make you think?
Evolution is not an explanation of how the first lifeforms evolved. Atheists have a completely different explanation of how lifeforms first evolved.
Firstly, it's already known that evolution requires an environment and an organism that can reproduce.
As soon as you have the first bacteria in existence that have reproductive capabilities, plus early Earth, you can have evolution.
Your assuming evolution is how all species were created. It is not. It is how humans and all the species that came later were first created.
At some point it all leads back to bacteria. They say DNA was found in asteroids. They theory is an asteroid landed on Earth and created bacteria through a chemical process that evolved into everything else, which was billions of years ago.
A scientist did an experiment based on this to see if he could create life with electricity, heat, and some basic chemical elements. He came very close. He ended up with the ingredients for life, put together in a read gooey substance, but not life. But under the microscope, magically we had chemical substances that existed in every lifeform on Earth, none of which were there as the initial ingredients of the experiment (you can Google this).
Evolution from what I have seen has many sects. There is basic biology, and in biology some interchange words like adapt and evolve..
I will not allow those two words to be confused for me.
Adaptaptation is change of a species in subtle changes allowing for changes in the environment.
Evolution is adaptation by forging togethet two life forms to evolve to one more stable or greater life form.
Adaptation is chages within a creatures own chemical structure. Like larger noses in response to altitude, or for a bird to grow longer beaks. The beak and nose already exist in the creature, but the environment may cause a natural response built in to adapt.
So the offspring may extend its growth to reach their food sources. Thats always traditionally been the definition that distinguished the two.
As brainwashing techniques used, confuse terminology and you create a premise for inducting the new definition, while making lines blury. And arguments invalidated by misunderstanding the picture behind the words.
It is how cults are successful at brainwashing. Its also how Hitler was able to move into power. And its characteristic of the liberal left. Made up of people steered by terminology.
So although viruses adapt and if youd like call it mutate. But then lets define it as we speak so as not to confuse it with the ism of self creation, known as evolution.
So if you think a man evolved from less than a man, then you are wrong. A man may have adapted in his thickness of hair, or the squint of his eyes, or his pigmentation. That is adaptation, not evolution as I have heard evolution explained.
So in reference to creatures forming and evolving, that is a myth. Not science. Its anti-science, because even science says it is not possible. Science isnt a place to make an atheist statement or any statement of faith. It is science.
Science follows science laws. If it happens to confirm faith thats a plus. But evolution has been faith based pseudo science, and its time to be clear about it!
Evolution from what I have seen has many sects. There is basic biology, and in biology some interchange words like adapt and evolve..
The other sects you have seen are religious assholes such as yourself who distort evolution.
I will not allow those two words to be confused for me.
A lie.
Evolution is adaptation by forging togethet two life forms to evolve to one more stable or greater life form.
That's fucking stupid. Why the fuck would you make up such a fucking stupid concept?
As brainwashing techniques used, confuse terminology and you create a premise for inducting the new definition, while making lines blury. And arguments invalidated by misunderstanding the picture behind the words.
So, you are admitting that you are attempting brainwashing with your stupid bullshit concept.
is how cults are successful at brainwashing. Its also how Hitler was able to move into power. And its characteristic of the liberal left. Made up of people steered by terminology.
There is no need to compare yourself to Hitler. Even I wouldn't call you Hitler.
o although viruses adapt and if youd like call it mutate. But then lets define it as we speak so as not to confuse it with the ism of self creation, known as evolution.
Self creation is the Bible you stupid fuck.
So if you think a man evolved from less than a man, then you are wrong.
Why can't adaptation lead to something much more complicated? If you make thousands of improvements through adaptation can't it be so much better that it is new?
man may have adapted in his thickness of hair, or the squint of his eyes, or his pigmentation. That is adaptation, not evolution as I have heard evolution explained.
I have explained to you real evolution. The evolution that you have heard is from brainwashing Christians.
So in reference to creatures forming and evolving, that is a myth
You self admittedly get your view of evolution from a Hitler type. Why not look for real evolution?
because even science says it is not possible.
You are a fucking idiot.
Science isnt a place to make an atheist statement or any statement of faith. It is science.
YOU TOOK GOD OUT OF EVOLUTION, YOU STUPID FUCK.
Science follows science laws. If it happens to confirm faith thats a plus. But evolution has been faith based pseudo science, and its time to be clear about it!
Your right, it is exactly why evolution is not biology or chemistry. Chemical compounds don't mix together and find the right balance to make amino acids and build biological living
things. And that's the bottom line!
Its unreasonable, even if reproduced in a lab, a lab could dictate a perfect controled environment. Contrling by design every contributing factor, making a slim margin of success by intelligent input.
Every balance we have in the universe is delicate and narrow. And its not by luck that every delicate balance happens to be set just fight for life as we know it to exist. A thriving balanced nature didnt evolve!
Your right, it is exactly why evolution is not biology or chemistry. Chemical compounds don't mix together and find the right balance to make amino acids and build biological living things. And that's the bottom line!
Its unreasonable, even if reproduced in a lab, a lab could dictate a perfect controled environment. Contrling by design every contributing factor, making a slim margin of success by intelligent input.
Every balance we have in the universe is delicate and narrow. And its not by luck that every delicate balance happens to be set just fight for life as we know it to exist. A thriving balanced nature didnt evolve!
Your right, it is exactly why evolution is not biology or chemistry
I said multiple times that evolution is part of biology. Why do you think your understanding of evolution is better than everyone else's?
Chemical compounds don't mix together and find the right balance to make amino acids and build biological living things. And that's the bottom line!
How many experiments have you done in your life to demonstrate this? Why do you insist on claiming that your knowledge is good because you have no knowledge?
Its unreasonable, even if reproduced in a lab, a lab could dictate a perfect controled environment. Contrling by design every contributing factor, making a slim margin of success by intelligent input.
Go fuck yourself. You can't claim science supports your beliefs if you just outright reject science before it is even performed.
Every balance we have in the universe is delicate and narrow.
Which makes absolutely no sense if it is done by an all powerful being. Limits should be broad if intelligently designed.
And its not by luck that every delicate balance happens to be set just fight for life as we know it to exist.
How many experiments have you run to determine that?
A thriving balanced nature didnt evolve!
YOU THINK EVERYTHING THAT EVOLUTION DESCRIBES IS TRUE.
Then how do you explain earth to be the only known planet with life on it, if a balance was being set by your God and couldn't come by chance? And why do we have so much species here?
Everything is hung aound us. The whole sha-bang existst for us and because of us. When God hung it all on day four, He also appointed time, our days were numbered ordered and planned.
The Bible is quite literal, not just in its stories, but in its precepts and practicalities. Its multidimensional. One could almost say His written Word spoken in perfection holds all things together.
We have copies of His Word, and it has had some hits in the battle.
But it is still solid Divine inspired and everything is intact and the Holy Spirit guides us against .
Why only here? And why so much here? Makes no sense that he'd want us to feel entirely insignificant, as an exception in all of the observable universe.
Is there anything that could hang it around us? Because that's an explanation I'd have believed no later than when I was 6 years old.
That doesn't make any sense to me. Do you agree with my assessment that you are a fucking asshole? Meaning the most notable thing to come out of you is shit.
The long journey of the advancement of mankind and the expansion of the frontiers of knowledge as well as our awareness of the Universe, of which we are a minuscule part, would never have even started if no one had challenged the superstitious nonsense which forms the basis of all religions.
I agree, science has not produced a rational explanation for the ''beginning of life'', as the concept of the ''big bang'' is, in my opinion almost as fanciful a notion as the various man made religions.
However, science, and not hocus pocus religion will someday come up with the answer.
Let's hope there will a sufficient number of people able to recognise and understand the scientific proof and have the maturity to discard the of the mumbo jumbo which was spawned from the ignorance of the bronze age*
If you want to discuss things with other people, you need to share the same language - therefore at some point you might choose to learn the difference between the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution.
Christianity has a seemless connection from the fall. Each author draws from and expounds on details uniform with everything built in the same materials, in the same manner, with its final conclusion and outcome in the same spirit from beginning to end.
Creation, image, two forces, a fall of angels, a fall of man, two images, free will, then became weak will, a wrestle to do good, under judgement, dudt to dust, (even science says many things come from one thing, the Bible tells us why and how, He formed creatures and man from dust.
So the Bible says a hand picked up elements that were deposited on the earth, and the dust He picked up, He made many life forms from it. So even though we say He spoke it into existence. The Bible was more knowledgable than any other sourse, because the elements were in the dust of the earth and assembled! They just did not assemble and breathe life into themselves.
We see consistency, and science confirms the Biblical eyewitness account. The elements in the dust were purposely squeezed together and life was breathed into it and nature balanced by the Creators intelligent design.
So the fall back to dust after life is lived, the serpent grounded to eat dust. And then a promise of seed, with enmity between seed of serpent and Seed of Salvation.
A judgememt decree that separates fallen dust from the Creator. And the Bible goes on to expand this to a final conclusion returning man to a place prior to the fall. Where Adam brought death to mankind, Jesus brought redemption, to return Creation back to the Creator. With choice given kust as man was given in the beginning. Eat from the tree of life or feed from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Knowledge of good and evil, a crazy thing, does God hate knowledge? No God is knowledge and understanding. So then what is the tree of knowledge of ... Its the difference between free will to choose by suggestion outside of being part of our nature. Free will is now weak will, knowledge of good and evil means we became trees of knowledge of good and evil. We bear both fruits, we are divided within ourselves, conflict of will from with-in, not from with-out.
So then the Deity gave seed into a virgin, to bring God into mans fall, in order to make a pathway back, which He carries us through. And Him walking in flesh, taking our judgement, and empowering us with forgiveness and His Spirit, bringing us through the eye of the needle out from under the fall.
So one message and its pretty simple to understand. Even if you do not believe in God, the logic is at least uniform and consistent, and follows a reasonable patterns, with its course taking a reasonable approach, resulting in a logical conclusion that is consistent with the entirety as a whole and also cosistent with each detail mentioned and/or expanded on.
.
I dont feel like any of you are a waste of time!
Jesus came to save the lost. I try to reason with you and others to at least have you look and weigh the evidence,. And apply a true evaluation of the presentations of evidence! Grenache is the only one so far that even acknowledged points made that are possibilities used in proof of at least Jesus existing and crucified.
But none weigh the points made and then setting them in a pile of possibility to then measure when all the evidence is compiled in the evidence room.
I value the biology presented. Even if I'm challenging in response. Because biology is factual, adaptation and mutation are factual and scientific. But evolution as creation is neither factual, probable, possible, or scientific.
Because no one can really explain evolution as creating life without input of something. In other words a cook cooking an elaborate recipe may need to assemble some ingredients, then make a reduction, then add further ingredients. Its a dance not possible because independent steps need to be taken, then added to the perfect reductio, also made from the available ingrediets.
Its not possible because its not probable, and even if it were its extreme jumps to fully formed creatures and eco system we see in nature and the firm basic physical laws of which everything follows. EXCEPT for when purposely with effort and energy and design they are moved against for a purposed outcome.
Like its against natural law for man to fly. But putting together many natural laws, intelligence can design something using natural laws to defy natural laws. Thats like a miracle!
God takes many natural laws and lets the universe be governed by them, but He can take them and work them in His intelligent design to defy natural laws.
Because He is outside of natural law. Just like the intelligence creating air travel, intelligence takes knowledge and then uses it in accordance with natural laws. Yet can use them to defy natural laws.
As Islam proclaims a religious world view, there are illogical and unreasonable parts that do not fit even within their own religion.
So also Evolution as a force explaining creation proclaims a world view that is illogical in accordance with human experience and also natural law, and order of reasonable methodical conclusion. The first foundation is illogical and then ignored by academia. With nothing more than skepticism without challenge, teaching skeptism and promoting unscoentific methods - refuse challenge, and remove thought, and ignore contraficting data without measuring it validity and merit.
Even what is measured is selective through a preconceived narrow limitation of information. Evolution as creation ignores everything outside of that lens. Is that a scientific thing to do?
And it results in ignorance of knowledge, shamed by its evidence disproving its foundations and origin, specifically the origin of life.
Evolution as an explanation of lifes origin leaves firm logical reasoning unanswered. And there is more faith required for creation by evolution than by the Creator as God, specifically God of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.
The Bible answers all questions, and has many levels of evidence confirming its authority to give answers reasonably and with logic in accordance with natural laws, cause, effect, result. Connections in order, logical order!
Like what happened for the 1st living cell to exist, against odds and destructive chemical processes that were unfavorable without intelligence.
At least look with an open mind and then piece together what makes sense.
Its not possible for God to not exist. All the evidence shows He exists and there are to many coincidences in the Bible to be dismissed without a fair trial.
Unfortunately many of you are closed jurors who do not weigh any points of evidence because of preconcieved faulty information. -Starting with foundational what archaeological findings at least prove historic merit in the basic sense, then beyond that what is the true messages, what contradictions actually exist, and what prophesies actually say, and what liklihood would they be fulfilled as they are written, and the other validations, and also the logic of likelihood in action of individuals and nations, and is there threads that weave a complete picture or is it twisting imaginations.
So Im tying to have people step back and be objective and truely weigh the evidence. Your belief is your belief. But has it been openly challenged by yourself weighing evidence not just "beliefs?"
So you reject whatever your leaders say? Well, Jesus didn't write anything on his own, and especially not in English, so that means that all your religion is basically a collection of fantasies. And specifically yours, because the others still belong to a group that will receive collective judgement if anything turns out to be true.
Since over 300 prophesies detailed Jesus, its not like we are shooting in the dark! If you understand the fall, you can understand the Salvation.
The answer is in the details, and in the reason, and does the solution fit? If you look at the story line and sequence of events and history and current events and interpretive of they are logical and consistent with both Old and New Testaments. Christianity is. And much is confirmed outside of Christianity also.
The question isnt did Jesus ... the question is who is Jesus after all?
God's Word is judicial. It involves witness, testimony, evidence, affirmation, confirmation, and every fact is confirmed.
Jesus didnt claim Himself, He waited for the Father to reveal Him.
Jesus asked questions He already knew answers to, which is obvious in the texts. In one case Jesus asks who do men say that I am? They answer with correctly answering things they heard from " other men"
But then Jesus asks, "who do you say I am?" They answer thou are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" Jesus resonds saying The Father revealed it to them.
This may look like a casual conversation, and you can speculate alot if you dont understand the Bible, and God. God is judicial. If you understand that its a good place to start.
Most people think faith is blind and there is no way to know truth. Its not true. Deut says from the mouth of two or three witnesses all facts are confirmed. In this case the Father revealed, He was a witness, John the Baptist was a witness, the Hebrew scriptures were a witness, Jesus Himself was also a witness, and the knowing within themselves also was a witness.
And its also the same of false testomony. False testimony of what other men thought was proven as false by the many true witnesses.
Everytime God asks for faith, He earns faith. Faith is evidence of things unseen. Meaning faith is based on evidence confirming what we cant see.
God judged Israel always after He showed Himself evident and faithful.
The whole Bible is a dance of God revealing Himself, and man looking with natural eyes forgetting what amazing things they saw.
God always asks man to respond. But He initiates. God has shown many of you, but in your response you refuse to even look. How can God show you if you refuse to look? He wont force Himself on you.
He is light, those who love light come to the light, those who love darkness don't. If you love light He will enlighten you. If not He wouldnt give treasures so carelessly.
The question isnt who is Jesus? The question is do you love light so He leads you and enlightens you, or do you love darkness over light?
Those who love darkness refuse to look at light lest their deeds be exposed.
If you do not weigh the copious amounts of evidence proving God and His Word, you have chosen no matter what is revealed in light, you love darkness and want to be blind. Spiritual blindness is a choice, before it is a curse.
Dont misunderstand, we know why people cant see, they refuse to look because they are in opposition to the Living God, and they want the Bible to be untrue. So they make a truth and put it on their eyes as a lens, and soon God makes it tbe quality of you vision.
Its not Gods fault you dont understand Him or His Word. Its your because you choose to look through whatever lenses you choose.
Thats why the Book is sealed to you. Not because its Gods fault, but your not worthy to have it opened to you!
It'd be closed to me because I'm not desperate to prove it right.
From what it seems to be like, when I read it, probably the next thing I'd do is write a criticism. But I won't be reading it right away - there are other books to help me criticise it better.
As I said, I'm not in habit to desperately assign meanings to random things - it would have been a lame insult to Hinduism. If that's what Bible is all about, then it is obvious that it being sealed to me is the only explanation.
Jesus said that Jesus built the Catholic Church and himself selected the first Pope right? Are you saying the only Pope who's opinion matters is Peter simply because Jesus selected him? Did Jesus and God not know who the future Popes would be because that seems like even inventing the concept of a Pope is a waste of God's time. If later Popes would inaccuratey represent God, why put that system in place to begin with?
The Catholic perspective is that he picked St. Peter as the Pope. If you disagree then you disagree with the Catholic, original interpretation of the Bible.
Jesus did not say He built the Catholic Church, that's silly. The Catholic Church was started by Constantine in an effort to consolidate the crumbling Roman Empire. Constantine was not a Christian, he pretended to be a Christian and then tortured and killed many real Christians who trusted in the Savior and would not bow to Constantine's brand of state sanctioned religion.
There was and is and always will be only one "Pope", which is an abbreviated form of the word "Potentate". That "Pope" is Jesus Christ. Peter was not a "Pope", Peter was an apostle, a sinner, a saint who required no Catholic endorsements.
"Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles and the Church" is not in the Bible. That's Catholic dogma, it's not Bible. Nobody in the Bible ever referred to Peter as the Pope, and Peter never himself claimed to be head of the church. Catholic dogma twists the meaning of the words while ignoring context and comparative related Bible passages.
You make this discussion and throw out all kinds of your own references to the Bible, then threaten to ban anybody who uses it for a source. How are you going to learn anything?
The Bible says there is only one Potentate and He is Jesus Christ. Jesus never said "Peter, I can't be Poope anymore, so I'm leaving it to you". Jesus is forever the only Potentate. "Pope" is an abbreviated form of the word "Potentate".
There are several things in the Bible which according to Catholic dogma would disqualify Peter from being a Catholic priest or Catholic Pope. And for your information, it was the Jesuit priesthood who was the mafia type force behind promotion of the big band and evilootionary teachings of Darwin. Those things were designed to cast doubt on the word of God as the Catholic Church is built on dogmas which supposedly are more important than what the Bible say. The Bible is the biggest threat to Catholicism and that's why the Catholic Church by force prevented it from being printed in the common language as long as they could, holding the world in the dark ages for centuries.
The definition of "Pope" is "Potentate", the head of the church and there is, always has been, and always will be only one head of the church and He is Jesus Christ. If you want specifics for sources and history lessons, which I don't think you really care about because I have pasted the links for you recently and you seem to have ignored them, I recommend the movies "Lamp in the Dark" and "Tares Among the Wheat". You can find them easily with a web search.
I won't let it be a source for proving the Pope IS WRONG (or that he didn't say that) because people like you aren't capable of citing something other than the Bible rather than proving your point. What I'm doing is citing it for other stuff. I'm citing it against your logic, but the whole point of this debate is that I think people like you will rely on biblical quotes in any debate where you know what the Bible says in that case instead of making an actual argument and backing it up with real evidence. I'm not being hypocritical because I'm only citing it for the sake of contradiction. Even if my contradictions aren't true, you still fail to cite something besides the Bible in a debate that actually proves your point. Citing the Bible in the case of whether or not abortion should be legal for example, is either no more than one argument or it isn't really a good argument at all unless you can back up your example with other stuff.
I declare to you, you are "Rock" and on this rock I will build my Church and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16: 15-21 (New American Bible trans.)
That's from the Bible. I just posted a university as the source. There's no way around that:
If you look in the Bible, that's what it says. Jesus is the one true leader of the Church, but he gave Peter the responsibility of taking care of that Church, while still knowing that Church belongs to Christ.
I get to cite contradictions like that because I'm on the opposing team and I'm finding contradictions in your logic.
The whole point of this debate, again, is simply that you don't know enough non-biblical knowledge to make a point, so you reference the Bible and ignore everything someone cites after that, unless there's a quote for that in the Bible. So I'm trying to get people to use non Bible related sources to prove a Bible related point about the Pope, simply because my prediction is that's the only method of proving someone wrong you can possibly use or you lose the debate. You lose debates with that method, but I'm trying to see what happens when you have to use other citations that actually are credible.
To start with, the NASB is a Catholic fake Bible which changes key words, deletes many words and phrases, and is not the Bible.
You quote all kinds of stuff which is Catholic dogma which Catholics claim is in the Bible, then you forbid reference to the Bible as a source of facts. That is exactly what the Catholic church does to keep people in the dark. It keeps Catholics in the dark by keeping them fooled into believing they can be good enough to be exempt from Hell.
I'm using simple logic and plain obvious facts. Everything I say is in line with what the Bible says, in full agreement with the Bible and if I slip and say something the wrong way I pray God will correct me gently and harshly if He must and bring me back in line with His word.
You hate what I am saying because you hate God, you hate His word, and you will do anything you can to deny His word. My source for these statements is YOUR OWN WORDS.
You still have shown nothing in the Bible which says Jesus made Peter the head of the Church. The Bible does say Jesus is the head of the church, it says it plainly, it never changes. You have to use twisted Catholic dogma to change the meaning of the Bible and ignore the fact that it plainly says Jesus is the ONLY Potentate (Pope), it plainly says He is the head of the Church, and it plainly says those facts stand true forever and never change. It plainly says Peter was an apostle, a sinner, and a saint long before any Constantine pagan religion came along calling itself Christian using the name "Catholic".
You can check these facts for yourself. They are not secret, they are found easily in the Bible and on the web, and I don't have to provide a weblink to prove it.
Show me in the Bible where it says Jesus gave Peter the responsibility for taking care of the Church. Paul said the care of the churches was on himself. That is plainly stated in the Bible. Peter was acting sinfully and was corrected by Paul in a stern confrontation. That is plain in the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible which says Peter was the Potentate after Jesus, there is nothing in the Bible that says Paul was a Pope even though he corrected Peter. Peter had a mother in law, he was married, he was a sinner, he was an apostle, Jesus was the only Potentate then and He remains the only Potentate now no matter what the fascists in Catholicism say.
Listen, kiddo, I"m probably old enough to be your grandfather, you apparently have not been reading much of my stuff. You don't know what I know. If you want an education which your brainwashing state funded teachers have deprived you of, this is a good place to start, a good documentary movie, very well done and easy to watch...IF your brain does not shut down and keep you in the dark. "A Lamp in The Dark" is the first, "Tares Among the Wheat" is the second. Get an education about Catholicism and quit talking like one of it's parrots trained to ignore history and facts while you spout off it's dogmas.
You want credible sources but when they are presented you will either ignore them or declare them incredible because they go against your beliefs. If you want to be impossible, your only doing it against your own life, dying while God is trying to bring you into reason with Him so your sins can be covered by His blood and you can have eternal life being forever forgiven and saved from dying in your sins in Hell forever.
Do you know how to read? What it says and what Catholics say it means are two entirely different things. The Bible interprets itself, The Catholic Church claims to have exclusive interpretations.
Did you watch the historical documentary movies I provided links to? You seem unable to listen. .
Evolution is a lie. It is not science, it's pseudo science. True science observes nature, studies nature, and may apply things learned in useful or destructive ways.
It is not circular reasoning to point out that evolution is a lie. You start with the fact that evolution cannot be observed in nature and you conclude that people saying it happens when they cannot observe it happening are either deceived to believe lies or are purposely promoting lies.
To say "Creationism is a lie" is a matter of your beliefs the same as to say evolution is a lie is a matter of belief. If you conclude that it is a lie to say God created all things, I'm sure you use some kind of disjointed linear logic to reach that conclusion. By linear logic I conclude evolution is a lie and you may not believe is is a lie but I can prove it is a lie and you will probably deny the proof that evolution is a lie. There's nothing I can do about that, you don't have to believe the truth if you don't want to.. A reasonable person will agree that evolution is a lie. Most people have invested a lot in their evolutionary belief and feel they cannot afford to renounce it as a lie.
The fact that you cannot observe evolution is enough evidence to say it is a lie. The burden of proof is on those who believe in evolution to show that it is real, and that burden of proof is why they make careers and never ending constructs of pictographs trying to justify their belief in evolution. There is absolutely no societal, personal, or material benefit to believing in evolution. It's worthless, it's a lie, it's empty, it's dead. If you can't tell when you are being lied to, that's not my problem.
You may indeed use some kind of convoluted linear logic to support evolutionary belief, but you start from the position of it being real and that stance dictates your interpretation of scientific observations. It's the logical fallacy of "begging the question". You believe a lie and insist it's true and then cannot accept anything contradictory to your belief.
I believe God created all things because first of all, it is the best explanation for reality. It takes a lot of blind faith to believe in evolution and/or the big bang, or eternal matter, or parallel universes or any of the other futile attempts to explain reality. I concluded God did indeed create all things after a careful examination of different proposed explanations of reality. It was a long time (ten or fifteen years) after I concluded that God must be there that I became a Christian. You're not using your noggin very much, you are drawing conclusions which enable you to be intellectually lazy while you fool yourself into believing your immoralities are automatically excused in dying.
Before I get into this, I think that when you say evolution, you mean abiogenesis, life from non-life. Abiogenesis is inferred from evolution, but the two don't have to coexist.
Adaptation is evolution, so yes, evolution exists. We can observe how species adapt, and therefore, evolve. Evolution is a very well established theory.
I agree about creation of the universe by a God, just not in the typical Christian way- I believe it set the standards for abiogenesis.
But again, tell me why it is illogical to believe that we evolved from billion year old organisms?
what do you mean when you say "evolution"? The evolution of the universe? The evolution of living things from non-living matter? The evolution of variations like Americans getting taller while North Koreans get shorter? The evolution of reptiles into birds and monkey faced primates into monkey faced people?
Living things come from living things, always. it is illogical to believe living things emerged from non-living matter. It does not happen, there is no sane reason to believe it ever did happen.
Whatever you believe in and call "a God" is not God, it is a loveless thing with no kindness for you. Do you know what that thing you believe in really is? It's Satan. You are trying to replace God with Satan, you are thinking you are as good as God when you are a sinner separated from God by your immoralities. You're on your way to Hell now, you need to repent of all your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and stop looking for excuses for your crimes.
When I say evolution, I mean a change in allele frequencies over time. So the variations of Americans getting taller while North Koreans gets shorter, sure. As for reptiles into birds and primates, that's a little misled. Birds did diverge from reptiles, but mammals and reptiles share a common ancestor, but mammals did not diverge from reptiles.
You can claim living things come from living things, but from what we know, this just isn't always possible- it's completely logical to assume life came from non-life at some point. Unless there's some weird time loop, life has to come from some where. Abiogenesis is the point where chemistry becomes biology, and is plausible and explains this life from non-life. Creationism is another explanation of this, but instead of chemistry, it says life came from God. If God is non "living", then life has come from non-life. If God is living, then where did he come from? Either way, life has to come from somewhere at some point.
Also, question. Why should I believe your specific religion over the many other religions who also tell me I'll suffer if I don't follow their exact way? If I was raised around Islam, for example, why should I be held responsible for not repenting to Jesus Christ when all I've been taught is that Christianity is wrong?
Uh, sure. whatever you want to believe, you go right ahead and believe it. Bad news....believing in evolution will not excuse your immoralities to get you out of punishment in dying, and dying never ends in the fire of Hell. Hoping in evolution is futile, but you go right on ahead with it if if makes you feel better.
I do not believe in religion. Religion is what you are doing in your belief system, trying to convince yourself that you rae making yourself exempt from eternal condemnation in Hell by your words, beliefs, or actions. You are religious.
Jesus Christ is a person, He is not a religion, He did not start a religion, He invites you to follow Him in reality but it will cost you your life.....your old sinful life has to go and if you believe on Him and receive Him by faith as your Savior, He will be in you a new life making you a new person who loves truth and hates lies. Jesus is God, He is the truth, the truth is reality and it is not religion.
If you wont' believe the truth, you will pay for your own sins in dying and you can never die enough to make your record clean, their is no end of paying your debt in Hell if you want to continue insisting that what Jesus did for you was not good enough for you. God Himself became a man and died for you, too, your place on death row so you can be set from from the penalty of your sins. You either believe the truth or you don't.
All religions, including atheism, are basically the same. All of them provide teachings by which the practitioner feels he is securing his exemption from punishment in death. Even Satanists are the same way, believing they are earning power in Hell so they can enjoy being there and not feel condemned....then they wake up in Hell and realize they were wrong and their is no pleasure in anything there. You need to wake up before it's too late and you are lost forever.
If you ask where God came from, the thing you are asking about is not God but you are asking about a thing you call God which cannot be God because God is eternal. Your question is an absurdity, it's your own mental ego stroking trying to make yourself feel better while dying. You make yourself a liar when you claim to are asking about God but in reality the thing you are asking about is not God by your own implications of it not being eternal. What you present as "God" in your absurd question is in reality your own consciously created straw man which you put forward arguing it is not God...Duhhhhh, since the thing you are talking about is not eternal, it's not God. You don't have to insist it is not God. We agree the thing you are imagining it not God.
That is not an honest answer. You want to believe it is the most plausible explanation because you feel it excuses your immoralities. Many of your idolized leaders who adorn themselves with PhD's and televised promotion have flatly admitted this and those who have admitted it can at least be credited with a bit of honesty even if they do waste their education promoting evolution. It comes from pride, in which you stand against God and refuse to concede to His right to rule over you. You're being a fool, and I do not mean that unkindly. You need to realize that you are being a fool and made a fool of by ungodly pseudo-scientists who are Hell bent on teaching others that they are exonerated of all immorality in death. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God. You are falling, and if you don't find God's mercy you are going to fall down in death to Hell and have proof of the fire which you deny is provable.
How does it do anything to excuse my immoralities?
How old the Earth is does nothing to hold me irresponsible. No matter how old it is, it doesn't affect whether or not I'm irresponsible. I appreciate your concern, but I assure you I am not lying when I say it's the most plausible answer.
So far, I have seen no definite proof of a God. While the universe's origin does without a doubt indicate one, I've never seen that God request me to follow them, nor have they warned me of a fiery death. All I've seen is people like you who do wish to save me. Don't get me wrong- I am thankful for your actions, but to me I'm being warned of a nonexistent danger.
Furthermore, what about the time when I previously did believe in God? I committed to God and decided to give my life to Jesus, but over time, I realized that it was not a path I wanted to continue to take. Since I still was saved technically, won't I be going to heaven?
It doesn't excuse your immoralities. There is no excuse for your immoralities. How do you try to excuse your immoralities if not by believing you are only an animal acting on animal instincts?
God is not "a God", He is God. "A God" is a thing which is not God. If you want to argue against God honestly, you need to phrase your statements as "I see no proof of God". Be specific about God who you insist there is no proof of.
You say you have "never seen that God request me to follow them" in reference to "a God" which is not God? Why would God ask you to follow a God which is not God? Do you think God hates you so that He would want you to follow fake Gods?
If you are not saved now, you never were saved.....unless somebody pulled you out of a car wreck saving your life temporarily while you are in the countdown of time to finality of death. A person who is saved knows the Savior is God and His name is Jesus Christ, and when you know this is true you cannot deny it...except maybe under pressure of something like a Muslim sword at your neck but the guilt you would have between you and God for denying the One who died for you would be quite heavy. You show no remorse for your insults against God, you are not saved now and you never were. You may have fooled yourself and some Christians for a time, but you were never a child of God born of His Spirit and you are not one now. I see, by your own words compared to what the Bible says, absolutely no reason to believe I am wrong about you, but if I am wrong I will see you in heaven. If you are wrong, you will wake up in the fire of Hell. I'm not worried about who is wrong, I know the Righteous One and I'm covered by His blood which paid for my sins, a debt you can never pay off by dying........there is no end of dying in Hell. Take it as a warning or take it as a joke. God gives you the freedom to choose your own way.
When he said "how does it excuse my immoralities?" he meant to say "what excuse am I providing to myself that convinces myself as a rational person that it excuses my immoralities because my explanations of ethics aren't that simple?"
You're not being honest. You want to believe you have the right to exist outside of Hell and your sins cannot be held against you, you want to believe you are getting off the hook in death.
Your a worm squirming on a hook hoping death relieves you from your immoralities.
We don't have the right to not suffer for eternity? Bad deeds must be met with punishment, but no crime deserves eternal suffering.
I know I'm going to die one die. While I haven't accepted it yet, as I still have much I'd like to do, I'm very well aware that any day might be the die everything ends. If there is an afterlife, I'll find out. And if there is a God, I'll find out. But if that God is a fire and brimstone style God, who wants to let "his creation" eternally suffer because they chose not to serve him, then I'd rather go to hell anyways.
What's the point of serving God? Don't we all deserve Life, Liberty, and Property? Yet we must die and give everything we have to God? If God is a just God, then why don't we see the consequences for greed when one man takes another's food?
It doesn't seem to make sense. Why would an all-powerful and all-knowing God need people to serve him? And again, I can bring up the free-will omniscience paradox.
In summary, why do we need to serve God? Why should we?
You do not deserve to live, you are already in eternal suffering, under God's mercy. To say you do not deserve to be where you are is lunacy. You deserve to be dead the same as everybody else, and you are dead in your sins, on death row, a dead man walking and talking, unable to get relief from your suffering and in denial claiming you don't deserve it...... innocent blood on the face of the earth calls out against you, ashes to ashes and dust to dust, you deserve it and you can't get out of it. You need to be saved or you will be lost in the fire of Hell forever.
"I'd rather go to hell anyways" is what you are asking for and getting. That's the stupidest thing anybody can say. God wants you in Heaven for eternal goodness, and you would rather fry like an eternal sausage with the rest of the people who loved their sin more than life.
Do you know you sound like a parrot? I have heard probably 100 people this year alone say almost exactly the same things you are saying here, with almost exactly the same words...........you are being led to the slaughter by Satan Himself, and you are flying into it like a moth into the fire.
You need to let God deal with greedy people in His time and be concerned about your own immoralities. Pointing at the immoralities of others will not excuse you, God will deal with each person individually, all will appear at the Judgement Seat of Christ and be Judged for everything they have ever said, done, thought, or imagined everywhere they ever were........God has your record and you have to answer for it.
Because He wants you to be pardoned and your sins must be punished, He took your punishment on Himself on the cross, paid your price so He is justified to pardon you as He could not be held by death and justifies all who believe on Him through faith in the blood He paid for them to buy them back from the death their sins have sold them into. You can be completely forgiven and justified the the One who justifies the ungodly and bought their pardon by dying in their place to pay their price. He executed your judgement on Himself so He is justified to pardon you if you will believe on Him and receive Him by faith as your Savior. If you will be honest about your sin and your need of salvation and believe on Jesus and in His name ask God to save you from your sins He will save you and you will be saved forever, a new creature in Christ, Christ living in you. You can be born again now and be saved from Hell forever.
We need to serve God to be partakers of His blessing. God gives freedom, He gives life, He gives all good things because He is good and He is love. We do not have to serve God, we can serve ourselves or anything other than God. I will serve God joyfully today and in perfect service forever, thanking Him for His goodness and for creating me and giving me life which is eternal.
We should serve God because He created as and gives us life. Your missing out, your riding in a boat full of holes which can't hold you up. God can and will hold you up forever if you will repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, If you will not, you're going down with no hope of being saved......in other words, you're a child of Hell heading to what you think is your home.
So, first things first, the "I'd rather go to hell" thing was a stretch, I don't think I could ever chose eternal damnation to prove a point. I'm not that noble. Anyways-
God created the universe and everything in it. He created mankind, and gave them free will to obey him and have eternal life, or to refuse him and have eternal suffering?
But why?
God created this system of sins and no sins, but why does he need people to serve him? Why does he reward those who support him with eternal life and those who oppose him with eternal suffering?
It's never made sense to me. What's God's point? If all he is doing is telling people that they need to accept him or else he will punish them, doesn't that make him controlling? Furthermore, if God is omnipotent, why do we need to thank him for giving us eternal life when it costs him nothing?
I would again like you to address the free-will omniscience paradox, or to refute my argument against it.
As for trying to save me, I appreciate it, but I cannot accept something which I have no proof for. I also hope that do not think I am doing this out of hate for a God, but instead, because I seek the truth.
Do you want reality to be void of anything good from God? Yes or no; I'll rephrase the question.
Do you believe that good things in this world do not come from God? Yes or no?
Do you thank God for good things? Yes or no.
If your answer is no, then in reality you want reality to be void of God's goodness and you are indeed desiring the fire of Hell over God's presence.
You are defying God and would rather burn in Hell than bow to Him and admit you are unworthy to be in His presence. You are exercising your free will, your heart's desire is to be free of God's dominion over your words, thoughts, and actions, and because God loves you He is giving you what you want, freedom.......and yet because He loves you, He is holding you back from getting what you really want desiring that you come to your senses, seek His mercy, believe He died for you on the cross and is risen bodily offering forgiveness to all who repent and believe on Him and receive Him by faith as their Savior. You can do this by being honest with God, talking to Him in prayer admitting you need His mercy and humbly asking for it......but you won't, will you? Notice the word "will" in "will you?". It's your free will which God gave you. Can you blame Him for being good to give you free will to make your own choice? You can try, but you will only succeed in keeping yourself in enmity against Him and you leave Him no choice but to reject you as you reject Him.
If you want to be as you are all the way until you are blue in the face and hope death gets you out of reality, God gives you the freedom to go that way and He even gives you air for the trip until you reach your desired destination of being without His mercy.
I am not trying to save you, I cannot save you, I cannot save myself. Only God can save you, but you won't be saved, will you? You will keep on exercising your free will and trying to blame God for your choices, won't you? Do you think God will buy it from you and allow you to escape?
You will not accept the fact that you are a sinner worthy of nothing but eternity in the fire of Hell because of your pride, because you love your sin more than life, and you walk according to your lusts.
You could change your mind and admit your need of mercy, but I doubt that you will. You will probably continue flattering yourself pretending to be better, smarter, and stronger than God until you wake up in Hell.
I'm telling you the truth as nicely as I can because I really was afraid that all the veins in your forehead bulged in your anger/hatred of God and I really thought you might have had a heart attack or something and been in Hell frying like an eternal sausage ever since then. I really don't want that to happen to you, even though you are one of the nastiest bastards (not a cuss word there, it means without the a father's chastening hand to correct you) I have encountered here.
My church supports a missionary in Ireland, maybe you can find him and show him how nasty you are. The reports of Ireland are that it is very much in the dark........I forget the details, but very few real Biblical churches there...no wonder you come from there with your "knock my teeth out!" chip on your shoulder.
Provide non biblical evience that evolution is a lie. Also it doesn't say humans descended from apes. It says we share a common ancestor with apes. Now I guess is the part where you cite a bible quote, proving nothing, when Charles Darwin wrote 800 pages of proof that can be replicated in scince labs and is proven fact. Otherwise, tell me more about how it says the Earth is flat and where it explicitly states in the Bible that God could not use evolution to create humans nor does it say not to listen to a geologist who writes a book about where humans come from. Unless you can cite where god uses the word "Darwin" as "the Devils work." By the way I'll bet anyone who circumnavigated the world or used the concept of evolution to invent new plants via breeding is goig to hell right?
common sense should tell you evolution is a lie. People prefer the lie because they feel it excuses their immoralities.
Evolution cannot be used to invent new plants. Plants may be genetically modified by applied science, but there is no need to believe in evolution to do that. Do you realize the stuff you use are arguments is silly, all desperation to uphold your belief in evolution as a pet god you keep.
One method of genetically modifying plants is to breed plamts with like traits over and over and they predict how each plant will evolve as a result so they can get the favorable gene.
Selective breeding is not evolution or genetic modification. Selective breeding has been done for thousands of years, it's nothing new, and it has never caused a canine to morph into a bear or anything like that, and nothing like that has ever happened and people who say they know it happened are liars.
repeated selective breeding done hundreds of times over and over can make the descendant of an orange be red and then even purple. And on top of that they made a combination of brocolli and cauliflower by bredding between them and then managed to change its color over time drastically just through selective breeding.
They've already turned wolfs into dogs, including Chihuahuas. Chihuahuas, as a consequence of domestication, wolfs become Chihuahuas (which don't grow in nature), leopards became little cats, and boars became pigs. Pigs, cats, and Chihuahuas don't exist in the wild, only along with humans. Explain how wolfs become Chihuahuas over a few thousand years if there is no such thing as evolution.
Wolfs and dogs are canines, they are the same animal. Dogs are variations, that's observable true science. To say dogs being selectively bred from wolves is "evidence" of evolution is pseudo-science. Evolution is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question; you start from the position of "evolution is true", and everything you look at must fit into that belief.
When you take any kind of ape and produce people through selective breeding, you are not longer begging the question but are demonstrating that it can happen. To believe it happened and be unable to demonstrate it is begging the question, it's circular reasoning.
And again, selective breeding is a form of intelligent design. It's done with a plan and a desired end. It is not evolution.
Boars are pigs. Zebras are horses. Tigers and lions are cats. Variations caused by natural selection or by selective breeding are not evolution. Evolution is the belief that all living things came from a common ancestor, which would be LUCA. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html?_r=0
Evilootionary belief demands a LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). Because there must be a LUCA or there is no evolution, it begs the question of finding LUCA. All they have to represent LUCA is contrived ideas. They show a picture of a deep thermal vent and say "meet LUCA" even though LUCA is not there. It's a joke, you have to be extremely gullible to believe it.
We can observe selective breeding causing new varieties of dogs. What you can observe and show in repeatable experiment is true science. Believing dogs morphed into bears or anything like that is pseudo-science, at best completely unnecessary and useless for scientific research and a waste of time distracting from more productive advancements of science and at worst it gives rise to people like Hitler who believe the Aryans were the superior evolutionary advancement of mankind and the Japanese who believed they were the superior breed and by survival of the fittest and natural selection they believed it was their destiny to control the world to further the evolution of mankind. Of course if they had won ww11 they would eventually have had to go to war against each other to see who really was the naturally selected survivor of the fittest for the advancement of evolution, but they lost and now we know blacks are the most highly evolved and whitey is trying to hold them back.
The agenda of evolution is the same now as it was then, to condition the minds of the masses into accepting extinction by force of a large percentage of the population as demanded by evolutionary belief in survival of the fittest. Your leaders want to you fall in line and understand passively why they intend to destroy 90 or 95 percent of the global population for sustainability of environment where your idolized leaders will carry on the evolution of mankind and through selective breeding and technological advancements they intend to become gods. You are a peon cheering them on as if such cheering gives you a feeling of purpose and meaning in your time of dying, and as if it excuses your immoralities as "only human" which in evolutionary belief is "I'm only an animal like a dog and only doing what comes natural as I try to survive and avoid being eliminated by natural selection.
Disclaimer: I have not read the above link thoroughly, but enough to see it supports the basic points of my post above. Evolution is taught as a mental conditioning for people to accept mass extermination of mankind. You can comfort yourself with belief in natural selection when they escort your loved ones to the gas chamber.
I read some of that geopolitics link. It's biased. Show me that its a credible source. It doesn't say who the author is and most of that article is opinionated.
And by the way, the "biased" geopolitics link is telling the truth about what your leaders are doing and how they use evolution to help them consolidate power. The plan is to reduce the global population by 95% by any means necessary and if you don't see it coming with the planned wars in which the global elite expect to laugh through it all and own the world after your family lies waste, you have your head in the sand. Keep on pushing evolution, in it your only hope is death and then your only hope is to escape answering to God for your immoralities, and you will be where the devil will be powerless in the fire of Hell.
Wake up son, you don't have much time, you need to be saved.
And by the way, the "biased" geopolitics link is telling the truth about what your leaders are doing and how they use evolution to help them consolidate power.
Any article that agrees with you is not a credible source. The article does not state an author. It simply states "ECLink Learning."
The link I just posted is a government site to tell if a source is credible.
Your article by geopolitics is based on no real research. It is funded probably by either extreme irrational conservatives or churches, and therefore doesn't say where it got its info from. We don't even know who the author of the article is, which to me looks like the person doesn't want to post that they are a priest who has done no non-biblical research other than mostly opinion.
When I call your article "biased," I don't just mean "biased" as a word by itself. If it can be backed up with legitimate research and not a bunch of gibberish then that's a different story.
A lot of conservatives also say "Jews have horns" and that doesn't make the source credible just because it agrees with you. What makes a source credible is what studies are backing the source and who is funding the backup evidence and the experiments.
Let me put it this way: If the Coke brothers put out a study on how healthy Coca Cola is, they are probably going to pay some scientists to perform a rigged test to fit their perspective. For bias to mean anything in a debate, the experiments cannot be biased. Rather, the results of the experiments shape what someone's bias is afterwards.
I know you believe in believing god unconditionally. That's fine, but other things have conditions on their my friend.
The points I made in my post stand. The links are simply further explanation of the points I made. You're just trying to hide behind snobbishness to avoid addressing the points I made.
What are you, a college freshman? A punk who has been told to act snobby and pass it off as knowledge?
The points I made in my post stand. The links are simply further explanation of the points I made. You're just trying to hide behind snobbishness to avoid addressing the points I made.
What are you, a college freshman? A punk who has been told to act snobby and pass it off as knowledge?
All you're doing is dodging. You need to face facts, you are on your way to Hell and will be there soon if you remain lost and don't get saved.
And it's all foretold in the Bible, a world dictator will rise, and he will come through the system which is promoting evolution as a conditioning tool to keep people in the dark. They will be stopped by God Himself, Jesus Christ in person will return with ten thousands of His saints and the corrupt governments of the world, all of them, there is not one which is not corrupt....all will be dismantled and replaced when Jesus rules the world from Mt. Zion, the true benevolent dictator who gives life and all good things to those who trust Him and damnation will remain with and on His enemies.
Believe it or not, Son, it's His world, He made it, He died for it, paid the price with His own blood and as His body was torn on the cross spilling the wine of His blood, He will tread down the grapes of wrath in vengeance on His enemies. This is my Father's world, son, He's still in control. You're on the wrong side, you need to get on the winning side, repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Receive Him by faith as your Savior before it's forever too late.
Now your using your source to cite the Bible again. Tell me where it uses the word "evolution" anywhere in the Bible. The Origin of Species doesn't present what I said earlier about selective breeding. It actually presents evidence (too complicated for me to read) that proves evolution. Scientists have replicated the experiments.
But my point is I'll bet the Bible says NOTHING of evolution.
Also, I knew the concept of that New York Times article. You referred to humans as being born from apes according to evolution. It says humans and apes have a common ancestor because all of the species have common ancestors. That said, that artocles shows proof you are wrong just because they can find a 4 billion year old organism and no humans living at that time, as well as the fact that one can find real fossils of creatures that no longer exist.
That New York Times article disputes your point but is ironically in my opinion the most credible source you have. Wikipedia isn't perfect either although they do have a fact checking system of people who approve changes.
Ok, your grandmother and her grandmother looked like geurillas. That's the proper way of telling the evolutionary story, correct? Or do I need to be more snobby in how I say things to make it clear that you don't understand what I'm talking about?
The NYT article shows what a joke evolution is.....it says "meet your first ancestor", then shows you a picture of a smoke pouring out of a deep ocean vent. Are you kidding me? It's the logical fallacy of begging the question. "There must be a LUCA, so that begs the question of finding it".......and they come up with a picture of smoke from a deep thermal vent and it's evidence?
comeon, kiddo, it's a joke and somehow people actually get paid for embellishing it in every way imaginable.
Hydrothermal vents leak carbon dioxide, which appears as smoke under water. You clearly never took a basic geology or chemistry class. If you discredit schools, then I know you didn't teach yourself any geology or chemistry either.
Vents do not leak LUCA, that's the point, and you seem to be wanting to dodge the point by talking snobby, a trait common among people who descended from monkeys as they selectively bred themselves to act like snobs in order to try to distract from their chimpanzee facial characterists.
The leap of faith you are making from a vent to LUCA is unrealitistic, you say it happened because you want to believe it happened. It's goofy. If you want to believe that stuff, believe it but I'm telling you it wont' get you out of your sin and it won't keep you out of Hell.
The story of evolution presented as something expected to be believed should tell you it's a lie. You should be suspicious of the motives of those who promote evolution, but you probably found that by believing in it you can make yourself believe you have the right to exist outside of Hell and you feel you can embrace death as a friend who ends your suffering. Bad news...your not getting out that way. Good news.......God conquered death amd is the way out of suffering into eternal life for all who will trust in Him.
Ohhhhh, it doesn's say humans descended from apes. Well excuse me Your Snobbishness, let me rephrase it....some primate type critter which looked like a monkey but was actually more like a guerrilla hybrid born of an orangutan and chimp parents... had children which looked like your grandmother who looks like a monkey only because kabillions of years and babillions of generations were not enough to lose the monkey traits out of her face.
Who cares if the Pope believes in evolution? The Poope is a sinner, he can believe lies. The Catholic Church sure promotes tons of lies, it's no surprise if they promote evolution.
Because evolution explains "creation" not "adaptation."
Adaptation means to form change in response to change, for survival by adapting to those changes. And the kicker to evolution is adapting doesnt always result in recovery of the species. Slight changes yes, but any significant change drastic enough to cause physical adaptations would result in death even extinction.
Evolution is used as a term referring to creation of the first of living things, by which self assembling occurs creating an equilibrium in nature and the environment that didnt already exist.
Adaptation is already formed species and any adaptive features are for survival in response to changes.
Adaptation isnt initiating its responsive! It is not in creation of an environment an then fostering a creation of living things "adapting" by selections to thrive to evolve into other living things or living things in general. Why would iron adapt if its not living to begin with? Does an iron fence adapt or evolve?
So if the items were not living then by what means or reason or purpose did they adapt? Did they want to create something? Does an iron fence create?
Adaptive is making an alteration specific to survival of change. But Adaptive is to environment is as learning a new skill is to within a current carreer or already established area of skill set.
Evolution defines the environment and selects by guess what will trive till the triving expand grabbing and joining other living elements and against odds and entropy, producing a new developed species designed to trive in the environment.
Adaptation would be over time changing coloring of skin becoming more stable to the changed environment. Adaptation is not creating a being with skin from interpreting the environment by knowing what will thrive by a guess.
We do not see evolution. We see adaptation. Evolution science always distinguished the two, they reinvent the story often. Now they redefine adaptation.
Evolution is not possible because elements would have to be perfect by design, mapped out. And then that would mean evolution involves intelligent design. Its either by someone or its by nothing, but you cant have it both ways.
DNA requires memory, so if the previous 1st evolving host dies, then does he have living DNA memory to pass on, for his offspring to improve? Its chicken and the egg with neither chicken or egg to begin with.
So if oxygenization destroys the first elements of protiens then how do they have life. And if they are lucky, and happen to grow without oxygenization hindering them, but then water liquid or vapor destroys it, then how does it overcome this never ending volley?
So they grew 2 or three amino acids, but they leave out the destructive properties that they really cant isoate from, because cell walls work as designed. These would have to form without a cell wall to which keeps out harm yet shares information.
So this is the foundational reason why evolution is nonsense.
Adaptation goes from being formed and adapting. The illusion that DNA for an eye found its way to many species is simplistic faith based on many assumptions. And there is no reasonable evidence proving it, actually the opposite is true, science disproves it as a possibility.
Whereas God is provable by science probability and human experience, as well as logic and reasonable understanding of everything around us.
Whoah, first things first. Adaptation is without a doubt evolution.
Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time, one type of which is adaption. Adaption via natural selection is just one form of evolution.
Not to be rude, but what you're talking about when you say "evolution" is actually abiogenesis- life from non-life. While evolution and abiogeneis do fit together nicely, as they go hand-in-hand, the two don't have to co-exist, you could still have evolution/adaptation with abiogenesis.
Now that we've distinguished between the two, let's talk about abiogenesis.
"Evolution is not possible because elements would have to be perfect by design, mapped out. And then that would mean evolution involves intelligent design. Its either by someone or its by nothing, but you cant have it both ways."
Why would abiogenesis need to be perfect by design? All you need is some self-replication and memory, and boom, you have life and adaptation, all things can come from there. With the environment of early earth, such a thing would not be that hard to find. RNA world is the best hypothesis to explain this.
"DNA requires memory, so if the previous 1st evolving host dies, then does he have living DNA memory to pass on, for his offspring to improve? Its chicken and the egg with neither chicken or egg to begin with."
I'm not really sure what you're claiming here. The previous 1st evolving host? Either way, it's important to note that LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) did not have DNA, but RNA- DNA came as a modified RNA, and is a bit different.
"So if oxygenization destroys the first elements of protiens then how do they have life. And if they are lucky, and happen to grow without oxygenization hindering them, but then water liquid or vapor destroys it, then how does it overcome this never ending volley?"
Early earth didn't have an oxidizing atmosphere like we do today. It was likely reducing, or even neutral, meaning little to no oxygen gas, perfect for complex molecules. Also, hydrolysis doesn't always occur spontaneously, it sometimes needs at least some release of energy to cause it to happen in the first place.
"So they grew 2 or three amino acids, but they leave out the destructive properties that they really cant isoate from, because cell walls work as designed. These would have to form without a cell wall to which keeps out harm yet shares information."
When you say "they grew...amino acids", I'm going to assume you're referring to Stanley Miller's 1953 experiment, which produced about 7 types of amino acids. When done again in 2008 (not by Miller), we found more than 20.
"So this is the foundational reason why evolution is nonsense."
And these are all the refutations I have provided.
"Adaptation goes from being formed and adapting. The illusion that DNA for an eye found its way to many species is simplistic faith based on many assumptions. And there is no reasonable evidence proving it, actually the opposite is true, science disproves it as a possibility.
Whereas God is provable by science probability and human experience, as well as logic and reasonable understanding of everything around us."
Once you have natural selection, anything is possible. Eukaryotes, sexual reproduction, multicellular life, organ systems, so on.
As for God being provable by "science probability" and human experience, that doesn't mean that he created the world in a week or even put life on this planet. It's likely that a God set this universe in motion, even possibly setting the starting conditions to cause life, but we don't have any evidence of supernatural interference beyond that.
adaptation is without a doubt evolution? Ok, show me a fish adapting to land and changing into an amphibian, reptile, or mammal.
You can observe adaption and study it scientifically. You do not have to believe in evoluton to study adapations or changes in allelle frequenceies. Things you can scientifically observe and study do not require belief in evolution. The moment you insert your belief in evolution into your studies of science is the moment you begin wasting time wihich could be better used for science. To believe adaptation equals evolution and proves little swimmy things morphed overe many millenia into a monkey who sired your grandmother is silly
Life is supernatural. The natural form of matter is to be non-living. To say we have no evidence of supernatural interference in the natural universe is ignorant, silly, laughable....God mocks atheist because they are funny and they are so serious about it. If you believe non-living matter caused life, then you believe non-living matter is supernatural....and you then uphold evolution as your magic fairy who has no wand; you believe in an absurdity because you feel it excuses your immoralities and makes you exempt from punishment in dying.
The fantasy you live is is thinking you get out of your sin in death, thinking your sins cannot be held against you when your dying is finalized at the end of your countdown in time. You hope you won't be dying forever, but if you will not repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ you will be dying forever in the fire of Hell.
This is reality, you are stuck in it and trying to fool yourself or keep yourself fooled into thinking you have the right to exist outside of Hell and you want to believe this for only one reason......you love darkness rather than light because your deeds are evil.
The elements combined that were deposited in earth were destructive to life forming - amino acids. Without incuubation of a life formed, that by miraculous chance was smart enough to incubate not just one element, but take turns. As if following directions. Take turns from one process to another, stabilizing somehow keeping other elements out. With the elements life in itsel by itself is not possible. A cell wall and membrane mimic the controlled experiments of evolution. But without the control implimented in the lab the prcess of life is not possible. Because the elements are also destructive to life.
And why would iron or water or oxygen seek to form a cell of life anyway? That's even sillier!
Its not reasonable in any stretch of imagination. Evolution is proven as failed pseudo science.
Mythological Science, they shouldn't be aloud to call it science!
Jesus does not like liars. He also doesn't like people who think He isn't responsible for science.
How exactly can you disprove all of the scientific observations made about evolution by looking at something that isn't evolution?
Where did you do any thinking? You have done 0 thinking about evolution. You didn't even think about where to go to learn about evolution. Why would you go to a Christian to learn about evolution when you think Christians don't believe in evolution. Would you go to a Muslim to learn about Christianity?
Fartman's brain is gassed, he can't understand that the Living God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath life, life coming from life, which is the only thing observed scientifically......life comes only from life.
Your science should have an answer. A tangible duplicatable answer. Its science.
Dont start with a living thing. Thats starting after the fact.
In the beginning, how was it formed without destroying itself. And how did it progress and how did nature balance while the process continued and how did the first animals present themselves.
So far all I have is a story of living things after living things existed. No one explained anything other than we have a dna for eyes so some creatures got eyes.
That doesnt answer my question.
I think you cant answer. And, You dont actually know. Lol ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. 😅😂😅🙃😄😅😂
Why? There is so much about the universe that we don't know. Why do you believe that humans have the ability to know everything?
A tangible duplicatable answer. Its science.
It takes time though. What reasoning do you have for thinking that humans have spent enough time investigating?
Dont start with a living thing.
Why not? That's what evolution describes. The process that living things go through. We know living things exist.
Thats starting after the fact.
Everything starts after a fact. Every movie you have ever watched starts street a certain time period. The scope that evolution discusses starts after life already exists. Why is evolution the only thing you need to check the story before it starts?
the beginning, how was it formed without destroying it
You are talking about researching something outside of evolution. It is as important to evolutionary study add researching gravity.
And how did it progress and how did nature balance while the process continued and how did the first animals present themselves.
We know this though and you reject it for no reason.
far all I have is a story of living things after living things existed.
Which isn't a problem for you when you believe the story of God and start with God always existing. Very hypocritical of you.
That doesnt answer my question.
Every time we answer your questions you run away to a new question and don't acknowledge the facts given to you.
think you cant answer. And, You dont actually know. Lol ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
The dumbest thing you can do is to claim you have an answer that you don't have.
So why do you make statements like this and then cling to uncounted ages in between the six days of Creation contradictory to the Bible's plain statement that God created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them (and that means all, and would include the angels of which Lucifer was one before he rebelled) in six literal days?
Because there is measure of angels and measurements of man. And a day to God is not 24 hours. Each day could be millions of years. But days 5 and 6 are 24 hour days. So creation by God is instant. But I think Satan was involved in mutations. None of which had successful outcome.
"Likely" is not scriptural. The Bible very plainly states that God created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in six days. That would include all of the angels of which Lucifer was among the highest before he turned against God and became the devil.
No it does not specifically say on which day God created the angels, but it very clearly and plainly states that all things were created in six days and that would include Lucifer and all the angels which fell and all which remained holy.
Anything you say which is not in agreement with this is heretical, it's not Bible, and you are casting doubt on God's word when you promote it and Cartman is right to point out the contradiction of what you say and what the Bible says. I believe the Bible. You are believing stuff which suits your emotions compromising with ungodly scientists and compromising with occultists trying to validate the gospel by them instead of by the Bible.
Gen 1:1 says God created the Heavens......that's not some of the Heavens, it's all of the heavens or it would say some of the heavens. So you are trying to tell me you think it's likely that Lucifer was created before the heavens were created? That is nowhere in the Bible, it's heretical teaching.
You either believe the Bible or you don't. It seems to me you do not, and therefore have no standard to discern between the voice of the Lord and the voice of deceivers.
God does not fit into the universe, He holds it together, He is independent of matter. "Fitting God into the universe" is the backwards thinking of people who reject Him from ruling over them. The claim they cannot logically fit God into the universe. Well, duh, of course they cannot fit God into the universe because He is there independent of the universe, always was, and always will be. When people say they cannot fit God into the universe, therefore they don't believe in God, the thing they imply is God which they might mentally fit into the universe is not God, it's a figment of their imagination, a consciously created straw man. They are refusing to acknowledge the Living God who must be independent of the universe or cannot be God. Outside of the universe, God is there. Inside of the universe, God is there.
The tent to dwell in you are referring to is the Tabernacle in the wilderness, where the glory of God filled the Holy of Holies, where only the High Priest was allowed to enter. The High Priest of course represented Christ who presented His atoning blood at the throne of God.
It will help with your presentation if you stick to basics which are in full agreement with the Bible. There was only one beginning before which God was there in three persons and beside Him there was nothing. It is entirely logical to say God was before all things and in the beginning he created things. That is the beginning of creation, it is the only beginning of creation. If it was not the beginning, and angels were created before the beginning, then to call it the beginning would be a lie. Before the beginning was when God was there, always and there was no created things. That is the only logical deduction and fits entirely with science. There is no scientific reason to believe the six literal days of creation were any different than what the Bible says they were, and to believe they were different is to believe the word of God is unclear, inaccurate, untrue. The One who created all things by His word does not require methods which may be repeated by people....in fact, they cannot possibly be repeated by people though people pay each other for trying.
People have many beginnings...the beginning of a new day, the beginning of adulthood and so forth.....God had only one beginning, and that was when He began creating things.
You killed the conversation in your first sentence.
1st of all you cant visisibly see heavens plural.
So did He not live anywhere? Or is He actually Himself Heaven.
In Him we live and move ....
Now Im starting to believe you are jusy argumenative.
Your 1st sentence is like saying Jesus isnt a real lamb, so we cant say He is the "Lamb of God."
And He doesnt dwell in temples made by hand, yet He chose to and did dwell in the Ark of the Covenant.
God is everywhere, but He is also choosy as to where He dwells.
He holds all things together, yet He stretches Heaven like a tent and sits on a throne. So if He is sitting on a throne, is He also counting every hair on our heads so not one of us is plucked out of Jesus' hand.
If you just want to fight you should probably go do that. If you want to knit pick concepts as if Im not knowledgable at all of what the Bible says then there is nothing to discuss. I assume a basic understanding so as not to knit pick your statements as though you have no balance to know He is this and also that, without one going away. He is both and does both because He is that mighty.
Like the argument you gave me early on that Jesus cant be tempted, yet He was yet without sin. But you had to knit pick exclusive concepts of Jesus. Yes He was tempted(in all things as it says) and yet without sin. So Im really frustrated with your discussions.
Be real or dont!
I didnt bother past your first sentence.
I didnt think you could improve on your 1st sentence.
Psalm 104 - kjv
2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
Isaiah 42
5 Thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
I'm only pointing out that in your desire to go with the flow of ungodly people you are ignoring the word of God and adding to it.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. That was THE beginning, not A beginning. There was not another beginning in which God created angels before the beginning when God created the Heavens and the Earth. There is only one beginning or the beginning is not the beginning.
You cannot fit God into the universe. He is there without the universe. The universe is there because He put it there. He does not need it to be there. He is there if the universe is there or not. He was there before the beginning, there was nothing but God before the beginning when God began to create things. Angels are created things. They were not created before the beginning or the beginning would not be the beginning. Why is that hard to understand? It's hard to understand because you are trying to compromise with all kinds of teachings which are not Biblical and are promoted by sources which contradict the word of God, and by promoting those teachings you are helping to cast doubt on God's word and Cartman is right to point out the self-contadictory aspects of your logic.
The beginning is when something started historically linear....after the beginning there is a time continuing. Before the beginning there was continually only God there.
I don't want to pick a fight, I simply see you are doing things which are used by the devil to strengthen the resolve of ungodly people in rejecting God's word and sealing their own condemnation in the fire of Hell. You're not the Queen of the Holy Spirit, sorry. I don't know how to say it gently when you won't listen.
" Like the argument you gave me early on that Jesus cant be tempted, yet He was yet without sin. " I never said Jesus could not be tempted. The devil tempted Him. Jesus could not sin. Being tempted to sin and sinning are two different things. Jesus is God, God cannot sin.
I'm not nitpicking concepts, I'm pointing out that the Bible is very clearly in contradiction to some of the things you are teaching. If you care about what the Bible says, you need to reconsider what you are saying because it directly contradicts the Bible and I understand why you are doing it....we want to have explanations for things like UFOs, big bang, evolution, shape shifters, remnants of what appear to be ancient civilizations, legends of Atlantis and such stuff. All of those things may appear very real to some people but they are not what they appear to be, they are used as orchestrated deceptions to cast doubt on God's word. I have thorougly studied all of that stuff, I still look at it from time to time just to keep up with the latest versions and "insights" and how people try to take those things at face value rather than being duly suspicious of their presentations and then they try to twist the Bible to fit in their face value interpretations of experiences in which people can be fooled through all of the physical senses. The appeal is to have special insight, to have special knowledge which is not clearly spelled out in the Bible, a feeling of importance for having some kind of hidden messages revealed. God loves you and you don't need to have special insight and teachings for Him to take pleasure in you.
in the beginning is the beginning of our heaven and earth.
Yet heavens being created and existing is present in its explanation of our heaven and earth
Six days of creation. Heaven is not plural Gen 2 when the story around creation is told it is plural. 🤔
Genesis 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 2 King James Version (KJV)
2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 Chronicles 2 re: Solomon says - seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him ..
4 Behold, I build an house to the name of the Lord my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of the Lord our God. This is an ordinance for ever to Israel.
5 And the house which I build is great: for great is our God above all gods.
6 But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?
Ok, so heaven is not plural in Genesis 1:1 or in Exodus 20:11. Can you show me where there was a created heaven before the beginning of creation? If it was created before the beginning of creation, then the beginning of creation was not the beginning. God created two things in the beginning, the heaven and the earth and there is nothing in the Bible that says He created anything before that. And it clearly says all things in heaven and earth were created in six days. You pick which form of heaven, it's heaven and everything in it was created in six days. That would be heaven around the throne of God, heaven where the birds fly, or heaven where the stars are. All things in heaven and on earth were created in six days, I don't care how you try to twist it, if you put time or any created thing before Genesis 1:1, it's you doing it and it's not in the Bible. And if you try to put more than 130 years onto Adams life before Seth was born and after Adam was created, that's you doing it and it's not in the Bible. The stuff is completely unnecessary for explaining our faith, it is contradictory to the Bible, and it is used to cast doubt on God's word.
Over the surface of the water. Rideth Heaven of Heavens
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (I think, on my confirmation shelf - this sentence divides Heaven from Heaven = Heaven(s) ) (So from Heaven #1 Where God existed before He created Heaven # 2 which is singular ... and earth
Possibly is the sea of glass like pure gold or crystal in Rev, Ezek etc ..
The surface or face dividing a Heaven of Light from a Heaven of darkness covering the deep. Where He rides the dividing line is "the face water" looking at the empty space of darkness which He filled within 6 Days.
Now we can argue day if you like. I think scripture supports the first 24 hour day on day 5 - resulting in instant creation of fish & birds day 5 and beasts & man day 6.
And the 7th day does not have an eve and morning, i winder why? Enter His Rest ..... is like major important. His yoke is easy and His burden is light - sounds like rest to me.
Psalm 68
33 To Him that rideth upon the heavens of heavens, which were of old; lo, he doth send out his voice, and that a mighty voice.
34 Ascribe ye strength unto God: his excellency is over Israel, and his strength is in the clouds.
35 O God, thou art terrible out of thy holy places: the God of Israel is he that giveth strength and power unto his people. Blessed be God.
If you take the word literally, why do you not take the six days of creation in Genesis literally, why do you not take Exodus 20:11 literally? It is very specific, very plain, yet you act like it's some kind of code for Christians to entertain themselves with trying to explain aliens and shape shifters and lost civilizations.
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20:11)
Any teaching which implies this is not six literal days in which all things, including angels, were created is heretical. You need to conform your ideas of the world to what the Bible says and stop letting the world try to tell you the Bible must conform to what it says in order to accommodate "aliens" which are not aliens or annanaki or whatever is speculated but are a deception orchestrated under the father of lies, they are not what they say they are and they are not what they may appear to be they are liars based on lies, and they are evil and that's all you really need to know about them, lost civilizations, evolution, the big bang, or any of that stuff. Christians in obedience to God are supposed to interpret those things according to the Bible, not to allow those things to interpret the Bible. Our focus is supposed to be on the gospel, losing our life for the gospel which is so simple a child can understand.
I was pretty deep into the occult and Americanized Hinduism for fifteen years. Your teachings are trying to blend occult teachings and new age (which is generalized Hinduism) teachings with the Bible. They do not mix. When you try to mix them, all you do is cast doubt on God's word and provide more mortar for Satan to use as he fortifies the mental block walls people have put up in their minds which blinds them from the light of the gospel.
And because He specifically did not put day 4 on day 2!
And you dont believe in God unfolding revelation. Where I have scriptures yhroughout the whole Bible that says He gives revelation and understanding. And that He confirms every fact.
So as a student of the Holy Spirit, I put things on shelves, and I expect brethern to bring new light completing and confirming because God literally confirms. So I dont take a tangent, I expect reason logic order and judicial confirmation of all facts on my shelf.
And you dont live that experience. I dont hold it against you. But I also wont limit God showing me things by your experience.
I also confirm and reconfirm.
I realize as a body, we should come to the Word and God will confirm every fact, and each will bring light and enlighten, and sharpen, and protect one another.
Which you think you are, but there is no revealing in your experience. And God has always lead me in that way.
Because His Word says that He reveals. Idont think all the light is known. He unfolds it at His appointed time!!
And I am confirming Word with Word, and I wxpect the promise of His Spirit to teach me.
And you have shown you are locked into following doctrines of men. And you are welcome to your basic interpretation.
I know a Day could be 1000 years. I know God is Light, and nature and creation tells of Him.
So I look to the Bible to interpret creation because all Creation is His written Word.
Nature does not contradict His Word. So I interpret the natural by the spiritual. Not the spiritual by the natural.
I dont divide fro brethern who hold to 6 24 hour days and I dont divide from brethern who cosider a day as a day outside of our time limitations.
I divide over fruit. And false prophecy. Denying the Gospel. Which I am not denying. If anything Im much clearer than your Hell theology.
God says let us reason together, I know this generation has to see the Bible as a valid authority, proven, before they can even hear anything. Its not like 30 years ago. In this generation we have to address the strongman of the age, and that is what I am trying to do.
And Im doing it in truth. Regardless if you like my structure, I dont like yours either. But you dont see me dividing against you as if you were decieved.
I am trying to reason with people, as one who reasons side by side next to the Lord, to reason with minds that can't reason because the darkness is soooo thick in these last days.
So I am learning things I did not know, so I can be all things to all people so I may win some.
And I will meet them in their education and show them their education as we have expierienced God in our reality for 6000 years.
Example: because God is light, eternal life is the Arc calculating the speed of light when time stands still. Well its interesting He is Light. And the natural is a picture of the Spiritual.
And children of God understood this by expetiencing God who is light. So to tell them after 6000 years science is scratching the surface of what gave us theough understanding!
The microcosm where the smallest division cause non locality, oneness with the whole. John records gobs and gobs of this concept. And we add the scripture off the Word as a sword piercing between bone and marrow.
Well we have discussed the microcosm for milleniums, they are scientifically proving things Gods people have known forr 6000 years!
I'm humbled by the truth and part of that humbling means I try to understand God's word and let it change me, I don't try to change it so that I can understand it. The King James Bible came through the blood of martyrs who were firmly convinced that God wanted them to make the best English translation, and it is the only one endorsed by God proven in answered prayers of martyrs.
NASV was created under Catholic conspiracy to cast doubt on God's word and strengthen Catholicism's claim of authority beyond God's word. NASV is not the word of God and should not be used to try to understand God's word. It was designed to discredit God's word, to confuse doctrines, and cast doubt on God's word. It's a tool of the devil.
This is an excerpt from the link I will give at the end of this post:
There have been many versions of the Holy Scriptures since the KING JAMES VERSION was published but not one committee of these versions has suffered for their faith except the committee of the KING JAMES VERSION. Some were imprisoned or threatened with imprisonment. Many if not all had loved ones or friends who had gone to the stake or endured banishment or prison terms. Why? Because they believed the Bible to be the Very Word of the Living God and "loved not their lives unto the death." This fact speaks volumes, Such men had convictions and held the Bible in reverence and awe and thus handled it and translated it with the greatest care and precision, knowing they must give an account before the Judgement Seat of Christ some day.
You see, God knew what He was doing - as He always does - in the timing of the production of this greatest masterpiece in all English literature. It was brought into being before mankind was cursed with telephones, radios or televisions. They had time to think and meditate and spend Year after year (as one did) in the Cambridge Library from 4 o’clock in the morning until 8 o’clock in the evening studying the Greek language. Lancelot Andrewes, the chairman of the overall committee, was fluent in twenty different languages, the greatest linguist of his day, and spent five hours a day in prayer.
The Holy Spirit also had His hand on William Tyndale, choosing him for his remarkable ability as a linguist. His native tongue was English but he was perfectly at home in eight different languages, according to the record. He studied under Erasmus, the greatest scholar of that age or any age. The genius of Rotterdam was courted by kings was offered the cardinal’s hat by the pope, which he refused, and was used of God to bring into being the Textus Receptus in which the KING JAMES VERSION is founded. Tyndale’s English was so perfect in his Translation that the committee chosen by King James used well over sixty percent of it with little or no change in the wording. Had they used their own style, it is said, it would never have endured for three centuries.
After these paragraphs, the web author makes some statements I disagree with, the Bible should be left alone and not changed in any way. God's hand brought us His word in English and people need to keep their editing hands off of it. The web author asserts there are no errors but recommends some changes. The Bible says not to meddle with people who are given to change. (Proverbs 24:21...My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:) I think the web author is a bit compromising when he recommends changes but he holds to the hated position of the King James Bible being without error and provides some excellent version comparisons and plain Bible teaching on the purity and unchanging word of God.
Being humble and nice does not mean tolerating compromising positions which are used by non-Christians the same as they are used by many who by all appearances and speech seem to be true Christians. I cannot help but wonder about people who imply God's word is not dictated to us by His own hand guiding the works of martyrs and the scribes who were assembled to complete the work in answer to the martyrs' prayers, and they claim they can discern and interpret God's word themselves. Of course they claim the Holy Spirit leads them into all truth, but how do they know true words when they say the written word of God is not accurately recorded so they have no objective standard of proof?
If you believe God's word is precise in every letter and word, yet you believe you cannot know what it is and have to decide it by whatever seems best suited to your thinking, where is the precision in that? Why not simply believe God gave us His word in English, and that He cared enough about His word to be precise, and reject all calls for it to be changed? It is only intellectual pride which seeks a new English version of God's word, God is against all pride of man.
The link below gives only a small percentage of the changes, additions, and deletions made by the NASB pretending to be a better English version made by the ungodly profiteers Wescott and Hort who were backed by the Catholic Church in days when the Catholic Church was much more obviously a mafia type organization than this present day when it's mafia type methods are worked in higher levels of government as the common people have been pretty well duped by evolution and the Big bang. The NASB and all other modern versions were created only to cast doubt on God's word and all should be burned by people who fear God.
No it does not. It does say that man fell the day he was created. That's really a dumb question. It does give the specific number of years Adam lived, Luke 3 gives the geneology of Christ back to Adam, and you can get a reasonably close estimate of the age of the Earth based on that timeline. There is nothing in the Bible which allows for adding thousands of years in the garden of Eden before the fall as Adam did not live to be 1000 years old. Adam probably fell in sin before he was 100 years old. He fell before he had children.
Why do you feel it's important to add thousands of years when the Bible very clearly teaches approximately six thousand years of human history and the Earth being only days older than mankind? When you add those thousands or tens of thousands or millions of years, no matter if you put them in the garden of Eden before the fall or where ever you put them, you go against what the Bible clearly teaches as the recorded history of man in a specific timeline.
Cartman is right about your "God of the gaps" stuff, and he's right to point out that such belief contradicts the Bible......so what is true? The Bible or your teaching of unspecified times between days of creation or in the garden of Eden?
Maybe your correct I dont know. What scripture do you have that says man fell the "day" he was created?
He didnt reproduce till after the fall. His age is recorded as 130 when he has Seth.
It doesnt say to the best of my knowledge that Adam fell on day six of creation. And since Adam died on the day he ate. Does the 130 years old start after the fall? Since he Adam died that day.
You have "born" born into flesh and born again.
Jesus says "born again" dont get your panties in a bunch. Listen first, then hoot and holler!
Adam wasnt born into sinful flesh untill the day he ate and died ... till he fell. Obviously its not dead and buried. He became dead in sin. In Adam all die, in Christ all are made alive.
John 3
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
.
So the point is we have more reason to count Adam's 130 years of age after the fall. Because beings who have eternal life that are not dead in sin, do not age!
I never said man fell the day he was created. That would be contradictory to the Bible. God finished creation in six days and said it was good, it was not messed up by sin, Adam did not sin on the day he was created. Adam did sin before he had children, Adam did live a clearly stated number of years less than one thousand, so there is no possible way to interpret the Bible to imply it says Adam sinned in the day he was created or that Adam lived more than a few hundred years in the Garden of Eden before he sinned. Adam sinned and was kicked out of the Garden of Eden anywhere from day 7 when God rested to a few hundred years of age by which time he must have started having children.
You once did a pretty good representation of the positioning of the characters around the time of the crucifixion showing how different people interpreted the same events from different angels and from different personality styles. Why don't you do a timeline representation given exactly like it is, simply and plainly, in Genesis without adding all kinds of stuff?
That timeline would have a beginning, 1:1, six days of creation, an time less than a few hundred years in Eden based on the fact that Adam lived less than 1000 years and had no children while in Eden before he sinned and had several children after he sinned?
That is the timeline given very simply and plainly by God in His word. Why not state it even if you don't believe it?
Why not believe it if God said it....or are you like the serpent when he asked Eve, "Yea, hath God said....?"
Now you are interjecting into the story. Its ok for you to make assumptions? But others cannot read to infer based on the text itself, or from the useage in other scriptures?
You should be gathering new manna everyday, when you start dividing over hairs then you have stale manna and its breeding festering worms.
We are in the 6th day, you should be gleaning double portions of new manna, and you seem to be stuck on mid week days old bread.
Now you are interjecting into the story. Its ok for you to make assumptions? But others cannot read to infer based on the text itself, or from the useage in other scriptures?
You should be gathering new manna everyday, when you start dividing over hairs then you have stale manna and its breeding festering worms.
We are in the 6th day, you should be gleaning double portions of new manna, and you seem to be stuck on mid week days old bread.
I have God's word. All the insights I need come from His word. Nobody needs any insights which contradict God's word, they are detrimental insights designed to distract from the gospel.
Why do you keep avoiding and/or ignoring that the Bible gives a specific timeline in the book of Genesis clearly showing Adam was alive when he was created and had been alive 130 years when Seth was born?
Why do you keep avoiding the fact that Genesis clearly states all things were created in six days and on the seventh day God rested, clearly showing that Adam sinned either on or after the seventh day and before Seth was conceived....before Cane and Able were conceived as they were conceived after Adam sinned.
Ok, so if Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, then Adam had to have sinned before he was 131 years old and after the six days of Creation. There is nothing in the Bible which allows for an unspecified amount of time to be inserted into, before, or during the time Adam was in the Garden of Eden. 130 years gives a specific timeline which is not open to varying interpretations. If you add any other ideas, it's heretical, outside of scripture, contradictory to scripture. You should be fighting against the people who are teaching these heresies instead of fighting against me. I'm only standing on the word of God and have studied sciences extensively enough (not to mention 2.5 years of Bible college after three years of rigorous daily Bible study under many well educated ministers and hundreds of books in all areas related to theology and psychology) as well as history, well enough to know there is no necessity of believing in any open-ended timelines. In my studies I extensively studied the things you are teaching with an open mind. I'm sure I've read with an open mind much more material about the things you teach that you have, and I had the same ideas you have now long before you had them. The Bible gives one uncompromising timeline of the history of the whole creation and all creatures in it and anything which in any way contradicts that timeline should be rejected simply because the Bible is clear on it's timeline.
A wise man, when I was a new convert, opened the Bible, pointed at a few verses, and showed me that the Bible very clearly says it is unchangeable and is God's word, and anything which in any way contradicts it is to be considered as the fruit of the tree of lies from the father of lies.
The Bible never says Adam's age was not counted before he sinned. Either you are making that up yourself or you got the idea from somebody else who made it up. The Bible clearly states how long Adam lived and there is no reason to believe anything other than that Adam's life span was counted from the moment God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The only reason anybody thinks anything different is a lack of faith in God, His word, or flat out rebellion against God's word. Stuff like that comes from outside of the Bible and contradicts the Bible making the Bible look like gobbledy gook which is coded and has to be deciphered by the geniuses who try to put themselves on pedestals as the teachers of the world.
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Adam sinned somewhere between verse two in the day he was created and when he was 130 years old. If Adam never sinned, he would be around 6000 years old today. There is nothing in the Bible saying anything different, if you try to make it say different things, that's you, it's not the Bible, it's teachers you may look up to, it's not the Bible, it's heretical.
Your trying to do all kinds of mental gymnastics to imply maybe the Bible doesn't really mean what it clearly says. You need to quit that.
Something that you say is possible is not something that you read. When you read it, it plainly states how many years Adam lived. Did he live before he sinned? Of course he did, he lived from the moment he was created. That is how it reads, that's what it says, and if you try to imply it is saying different things you are trying to make it say things it does not say.
There is no "regardless if it was on day 6 or not". It plainly says all things were created in six days and it was all very good when it was finished. There was no sin in the world until after the sixth day. Then God rested on the seventh day. It was after the seventh day that God confronted Adam about his sin. Adam may have sinned on the seventh day, it may have been on the eighth or ninth day, or it may have been any time before Seth was conceived. It was not after Seth was conceived, and it was not before the seventh day. Adam could have been living in Eden 129 years, not more than 130 years. That is what it says. If you read it and say what it says, that's what you have to say. You either believe it or you try to change it into saying things it does not say. I fear God and I'm not going to try to change his word. You seem to think God has given you a license to change His word. You have an attitude problem....sorry, it's the truth. You are following teachers who have attitude problems, puffing themselves up in pride claiming to have special insights into God's word.
I have never heard of the book of Adam and Eve and am speaking of nothing but what is plainly written in Genesis and repeated in Exodus 20:11. The only reason you would feel I gave you a hard time about your references to the book of Enoch would be that you are still proud and not repenting of seeking insights contradictory to the word of God.
So far, not one evolution advocate on this site has proven evolution has validity at its foundation.
Are you willing to explain the steps of the beginning?
I was looking for something more concrete.
If evolution explain the beginning.
If you think something different then please explain your view or "facts" of the beginning of life.
I am looking for your facts of origin of life.
With all the biology i want to know the beginning of life from your view.I dont need an argument against God. I need a firm reason to think evolution has a valid logical possible beginning.
Please enrich us with profound beginning of the all powerful intelligent process of evolution. The foundation of life and the process from the beginning.Im not looking for could have. Im looking for someething sure.
Evolution seems sure. Yet they cant explain the basic beginning, the foundation.
Please be clear. Is evolution faith or fact. A logical and biologocally possible beginning will tell us that. I want to know the beginning process of life. So explain the foundation. In the beginning .... then life ...
How did it form? How did it sheild itself to continue. And how did the first formed animals begin? And also how nature was banced in the process.
Please no links. Give me the technical basics of the beginning of life and the delicate balancing of it as evolution continued.
Im speaking of life. Living things! So you can start with whatever you think happened, but I am looking for the process of llife from the beginning!
Fartman, you probably lost your teeth from cussing and lying if you didn't lose them from sitting around in your fatness eating donuts all day.
Most of the people arguing in favor of evolution use their argument as their main reason for claiming to know there is no God, you know this fact is true, and you are one of those people. If not, then plainly state you believe God is there or accept the fact that I have called you a fart faced liar and am right.
You don't listen to anyone. You don't even listen to yourself. How can you possibly claim to know what people argue?
and you are one of those people.
There is my proof. I have told you exactly why I don't believe in God. It never mentions evolution.
. If not, then plainly state you believe God is there or accept the fact that I have called you a fart faced liar and am right.
You declaring that evolution is the only reason to believe there is no God is not something I have to accept. And my proof is that you don't believe in evolution and you don't believe in God.
I've listened to you enough to know you are bitter, I know you have a problem telling the truth, I know you hate God and you hate people who say that God loves you.
I've listened enough to you to know that you are hiding whatever you hold as your excuse for being so bitter in the world.
I've listened enough to you to know that you believe you have the right to exist outside of the fire of Hell.
I've listened to you enough to know you are foul and I'd rather hear my own farts than your foul mouth.
You're trying to put words in my mouth once again because you are a liar, fartman. Usually you are bold in putting words in my mouth, this time you are trying to be a little tricky but anybody with half a brain can read and see that what you say I said is a lie. Why are you so foul? Why are you so bitter? What happened to you? How did you get this way? Comeon, boy, spill it... be real. What happened to you to make you so bitter? Come out of your closet for a minute and give us a glimpse of who you really are, don't be afraid to let a little light shine on those skeletons.
Ok farman. Maybe your brain really is that far gone so you cannot comprehend simple statements and can only deal with challenges by changing the terms, so you don't even realize that your version of things said is not what was said...creating straw men you can handle while denying the truth but doing it only because you are not emotionally equipped to deal with reality.
Cartman does not care if he wakes up in Hell tomorrow. For now, I see no reason to repeatedly ask God to save him when he does not want to be saved and only wants to defy God. I see no reason to hope the scales will fall off of Cartmans eyes as he repeatedly has insisted it is not possible. If Cartman wants it to be impossible for him to be saved from Hell, it will be impossible for Cartman to be saved from Hell because God will give Cartman what he really wants even though he does not realize he is asking to fry like an eternal sausage in Hell and really does not want that for himself.......but he really is asking for it.
It seems that you should read the Princeton Guide to Evolution.
I liked their Mathematics book (as much as I've read it, yet), so it should be good. From the description, it gives a complete account of evolution that a non-specialist can also understand.
Why waste time reading books on evolution? How many books do you have to read before you can understand evolution? is it really that hard to understand that you believe an amoeba morphed into a monkey which was your grandma and that explains why her face looked like a gorilla and she always had a monkey itch and ended up with dozens of babies from many monkey daddies?
Darwin was a puppet of Jesuit priests, used to promote evolution as a way of casting doubt on the Bible which teaches the Catholic church is not Christian.
You need to get out of your bitterness. Why do you hate God so much? Are you angry that you have to exist in a world of suffering and disappointment? Will you feel better if you conquer the world and own everything?
Nothing can make anyone truly happy, ever. Things can only hide your dread.
I'm rather annoyed at being sentient itself - and the things that totalitarian administrators or those desperate to be controlled say about it. Though that's not an exhaustive list, it is relevant enough.
Nothing can make anyone truly happy? Really? All you show by that statement is that you are not truly happy, and that is the natural condition of people who are not thankful toward God.
Can you quit hiding behind your sentient communistic manifesto?
You don't have to know God to study theology. Muslims put together a lot of pretty good science and logic based material showing God is there, but they do not know God and have replaced Him with Allah, the moon-god of ancient tribal Arabia.
All you know is death, it's real, it's the only thing you really know because you are dying. A dying person needs to be saved. You are lost to death, have no hope except the baseless hope of death ending your misery which comes from hating God.
Actually this debate was all a scam. I wanted to see people yell at each other. So I stirred up something controversial. There wasn't really any point in this debate at all. on a lounge chair smiling while being interviewed.
also here's a CNN article. you have to summarize the whole article and then explain how its fraudulent as well as how it got on CNN as part of the contest. The first person to do all of this with zero religion based arguments or referencesto religious texts wins. you can only compete if you believe in God and also not evolution. Atheists can still join the discussion.
The word is overused by calling everybody you dislike or anything you disagree with "debunked". It's dumb. People act like if they say "that thing or person is debunked" they are exempt from giving reasonable explanation of their opinion or belief, and they are exempt from acknowledging facts which disagree with their "debunking". It's just plain cheap abuse of a word.
To be fair, Saintnow, you are the one to insult anything you disagree or dislike, and then ban everyone in the thread because you're in denial. I'm not really sure you have a leg to stand on when it comes to calling out circular logic.
The truth sounds insulting and I'll let it sound that way when you insult me. It is not unkindness of me to say you are being an idiot. You need to think about what you are doing to yourself. I'm telling you the truth because I care and I see no way to get the point across but to hit you between the eyes as hard as I can with the truth. You are opposing your own life and I'm trying to wake you up. What you are doing is idiocy, and I'm telling you that as a friend. You may hate me forever, you may realize that God loves you and is using me to try to get through your thick skull, and if the glorious light of the gospel which is the good news of God in Jesus Christ ever gets through that brick wall you have built inside your head behind which you think your record of crimes against God is hidden, you will be thankful for God's mercy and thankful that He sent me here trying to reach you on His behalf.
If people are being disruptive, unreasonable and repeatedly showing they are not going to be reasonable with me, I want them out of the discussion to keep clutter down in case somebody comes along who is not so closed minded as most people here are. I have no apologies for banning, I have made my reasons for banning clear repeatedly and have read hundreds like you say the same feelings-based, not fact based, accusation that I am unreasonable.
I exist in time, it's linear, I'm moving forward toward what is ahead and forgetting what is behind. My logic and reasoning is not circular, it's realistic and it comes from God who is logical, reasonable, and merciful. It's His mercy you are disdaining, and it's your attitude which is taking you down to Hell.
You are not being fair saying this stuff to me. You are excusing everybody who attacks me, they start it, not me. I put the truth out there and people hate it because the truth is in light which reveals guilt. You have repeatedly been one of those attackers, yet I try still to be reasonable with you, I try to forget the garbage you have thrown out knowing it's not really me you are trying to discredit but it's God who you want to put down and you're making a fatal mistake......just telling you the truth between God and yourself as a friend........and it is unpleasant for me to watch you doing it, you can't win going against God. You'll only ensure your own eternal condemnation if you succeed in convincing yourself that God is not good until you draw your last breath.
You don't see me using the word "debunked" unless I'm trying to show how dumb it is. I use reason, facts, logic, truth and I do it because I know God loves His enemies though He hates what they do in defiance of Him.
The Catholic Church promotes evolution because it discredits the Bible. The Bible has always shown that the Catholic church is a pagan religion based on lies and the Catholic Church has always tried to keep people from believing the Bible. The Jesuit priests were the driving force to get the big bang story and the story of evolution into the mainstream media. It's a no-brainer that the Pope promotes and supports evolution. Why ask for proof that he does not when he does and it's no secret that he does promote evolution? The OP is a mute point.
Not only is this statement misinformed but also outright incorrect, somewhat racist, and doesn't even have proper grammar and formatting. Congratulations DBCooper, I think that's a new record for worst argument I've ever seen.
You have to admit Obama does have a lot of monkey traits in his face. I also heard he has a tail, and there are many reports of demonic activity showing in his words and actions....which of course is not intended by Obama, in his error he opens himself up for demons to use.
Please return to grade school so you can re-establish an understanding of grammatical sentence structure. Your opinions are neglected and seen as stupid when you can't iterate them in a proper sentence.
Looks like this clownbueno is being more careful with his punctuation after I notified him how easily I could show from past posts that his writing skills are around the fourth grade level......and his creativity is not much better as he's using my jokes...but I take that as a compliment since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And yes I have a weakness for run-on sentences, my Achilles' heel in composition...always a chore for me to divide my sentences but I sure know how to proofread and I sure know how to spot inferior English skills.
When have you ever done this??? I've honestly corrected your horrendous English more times than I can count on my digits. You're an imbecile, please return to your cave you delusional neanderthal.
hahahahhahah........you don't like what I'm saying so you nitpick on the grammar, punctuation and spelling. I don't bother to correct yours though I could, and make you look stupid like a child playing games but it's not worth it. I know what you are saying or trying to say most of the time in spite of your grammar and composition errors. You are trying to say that you believe you are good enough to remain convinced that you cannot be condemned in death to the fire of Hell forever. I got that. Then you get all childish and nasty trying to make me look bad as if by making me look bad you can prove you have the right to exist outside of Hell....it's like you think that if you can pull me down, then you can stand on top of me and not be condemned to the fire of Hell. I'm saved from Hell. Standing on top of my dead body won't keep you out of Hell.
is there any part of that which your thick skull does not comprehend?
