Christian Firepower

[Revolver45]

I've been going to this site for a long time and I find it extremely interesting, compelling and it makes a lot of sense. So for those of you christians who need a bit of firepower when debating evolutionists try this site:

www.drdino.com

[wade1226]

Originally Posted by Revolver45

I've been going to this site for a long time and I find it extremely interesting, compelling and it makes a lot of sense. So for those of you christians who need a bit of firepower when debating evolutionists try this site:

www.drdino.com

Why do Christianity and evolution have to be mutually exclusive? Seriously, what of the two do not mesh?

[CITADEL]

Originally Posted by wade1226

Why do Christianity and evolution have to be mutually exclusive? Seriously, what of the two do not mesh?

Well the theory of evolution doesn't really fit with the way Christians view it, that god created man (Adam and Eve) in his own image. Two totally seperate viewpoints, and most will admit that.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by CITADEL

Well the theory of evolution doesn't really fit with the way Christians view it, that god created man (Adam and Eve) in his own image. Two totally seperate viewpoints, and most will admit that.

Maybe it is a combination of both. God created the world, but how he created it was through evolution.

[wade1226]

Originally Posted by CITADEL

Well the theory of evolution doesn't really fit with the way Christians view it, that god created man (Adam and Eve) in his own image. Two totally seperate viewpoints, and most will admit that.

Who is to say how God created Adam and Eve? Were you there? Did you witness the creation? If not, then how can you say how it was done?

[CITADEL]

Originally Posted by wade1226

Who is to say how God created Adam and Eve? Were you there? Did you witness the creation? If not, then how can you say how it was done?

So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them (Gen1:27)

If he created Adam and Eve in his image, and if evolution is in fact true, which would put the earth at several billions of years old, then Adam and Eve look nothing like the church portrays them as, and god would look nothing like we envision him to be. He might even be, dare I say, ugly... hahha

Why would a perfect god design an imperfect being that would require so much time in order to evolve itself into what we are today?

[CITADEL]

Wade and Diesel, do you believe it was the Christian god who set the events in motion for evoluton, or an unknown god?

[AntonToo]

Originally Posted by CITADEL

Wade and Diesel, do you believe it was the Christian god who set the events in motion for evoluton, or an unknown god?

With evolution, eventually religion will have to resort to that "interpretation".
Sience will continue to push and religion will continue to bend backwards, acceptance of evolution is just another heavy blow against the bible.

[CITADEL]

Originally Posted by AntonToo

With evolution, eventually religion will have to resort to that "interpretation".
Sience will continue to push and religion will continue to bend backwards, acceptance of evolution is just another heavy blow against the bible.

Of course it is. It'll just take time for people to realize it and even more time for them to openly accept it.

[ajeh]

Originally Posted by AntonToo

With evolution, eventually religion will have to resort to that "interpretation".
Sience will continue to push and religion will continue to bend backwards, acceptance of evolution is just another heavy blow against the bible.

No not really. Sure if you make some exceptions with the bible and say for example don't take the god created the world in 6 days part so literally and make it 6 periods of time, it does fit.

And science can explain quite a bit in theories, but it doesn't know much of anything for a fact. So if you believe the bible, or science you have to have alot of faith, noone knows anything for a fact.

[CITADEL]

Originally Posted by ajeh

No not really. Sure if you make some exceptions with the bible and say for example don't take the god created the world in 6 days part so literally and make it 6 periods of time, it does fit.

And science can explain quite a bit in theories, but it doesn't know much of anything for a fact. So if you believe the bible, or science you have to have alot of faith, noone knows anything for a fact.

Why do Christians like to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are symbolic, when the Bible doesn't state either way?

[zTPSz]

i think its ridiculous that christians cant accept evolution. carbon dating and all that crap isnt just something a few crack pots throw together. its more-or-less accurate. plus a "day" is just a unit of time. you would have to know greek and read the original manuscripts to know if it was actually a "day" or not. for all we know that interpretation is just that, a loose interpretation. a day could be a million years. a day could be 10 million years. and even if you knew the greek word and meaning, it still wouldnt be clear becuase its probably just a word that means "a period of time" or somethign along those lines.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by zTPSz

i think its ridiculous that christians cant accept evolution. carbon dating and all that crap isnt just something a few crack pots through together. its more-or-less accurate. plus a "day" is just a unit of time. you would have to know greek and read the original manuscripts to know if it was actually a "day" or not. for all we know that interpretation is just that, a loose interpretation. a day could be a million years. a day could be 10 million years. and even if you knew the greek word and meaning, it still wouldnt be clear becuase its probably just a word that means "a period of time" or somethign along those lines.

Those who just throw out all forms of radioactive dating are fools. Yes carbon dating has some errors, mainly dating things that nobody knows when they were killed. Date charcoal from a camp and find out it is 100,000 years old even though the people may have been only 10,000 years old.

btw
about the God and evolution start, I dont know. I lean diest, but I do not believe the world could have been formed with only random chance and survival of the fittess.

[zTPSz]

oh, and i didnt go to the website, but i know from experience that Kent Hovind is NOT very credible. I do not support him now, and I did not support him when I was a christian.

[AntonToo]

Originally Posted by ajeh

No not really. Sure if you make some exceptions with the bible and say for example don't take the god created the world in 6 days part so literally and make it 6 periods of time, it does fit.

And science can explain quite a bit in theories, but it doesn't know much of anything for a fact. So if you believe the bible, or science you have to have alot of faith, noone knows anything for a fact.

Oh yea?

Science has shown us that Sun is a star without any special properties compared to others. Bible has separete days for star creation and sun, which are the same thing.

THATS A FACT.

[wade1226]

Originally Posted by CITADEL

Why do Christians like to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are symbolic, when the Bible doesn't state either way?

Well, since you're so knowledgable about what all Christians do, then please inform me of which parts I choose to be literal and which parts I choose to be figurative. This should be easy, judging by your blanket statement.

[wade1226]

Originally Posted by zTPSz

i think its ridiculous that christians cant accept evolution. carbon dating and all that crap isnt just something a few crack pots throw together. its more-or-less accurate. plus a "day" is just a unit of time. you would have to know greek and read the original manuscripts to know if it was actually a "day" or not. for all we know that interpretation is just that, a loose interpretation. a day could be a million years. a day could be 10 million years. and even if you knew the greek word and meaning, it still wouldnt be clear becuase its probably just a word that means "a period of time" or somethign along those lines.

I think it's ridiculous when certain Christians refuse to accept evolution too. The problem is, I think it's a vast minority that do so, but they do it in such a vocal manner that it appears as if a majority of Christians are that way.

[wade1226]

Originally Posted by AntonToo

With evolution, eventually religion will have to resort to that "interpretation".
Sience will continue to push and religion will continue to bend backwards, acceptance of evolution is just another heavy blow against the bible.

I don't see evolution as being a heavy blow against the Bible. The two aren't mutually exclusive. My guess is you want to see it that way, so that's how you interpret it.

[AntonToo]

Originally Posted by wade1226

I don't see evolution as being a heavy blow against the Bible. The two aren't mutually exclusive. My guess is you want to see it that way, so that's how you interpret it.

The part about adam and eve would have to be thrown out. I'd say thats a big discreditor. Just another part not to be taken literally, just another chance to wander how much of bible can be interpreted in completely different manner. Just another chance to wander why perfection that is god would ever choose to communicate in such ineffecient/misleading manner.

[Revolver45]

I don't think most christians deny the possibility of micro evolution, IE, species adapting to their surroundings. However the ideas incorporated in the big bang theory and the theory of macro evolution seem unbelievably unreliable and far fetched. The idea behind the big bang theory is clearly that at one point all matter and energy in the universe was contained within an extremely small space or object, and this object was apparently spinning very rapidly. The problem with this is that in order for this object to spin it would need some sort of force acting on the outside of the object, which is impossible if all of the matter and energy were located inside of this object. Furthermore, in order for this object to expode it would need friction acting upon it on the outside, also impossible. There is also a scientific law that states that if a spinning object breaks apart, all of the smaller objects that come from the larger object will spin in the same direction, but it is well known that there are not only planets, but entire galaxies that not only on different axis' than others, but in the exact opposite direction.


Regarding evolution:

I just have 2 questions I would like answered by evolutionists, I'm not being hostile in asking these I'd just like to know. I'm sure these have been asked before but I'd like answers:

Where did the first life come from? The first living cell. How do you get life from nothing?

and second

Where, when and how did the seperation of male and female (in nearly every species on earth) occur?

[xakeP]

Yea, that guy, Dr. Kent Hovind is a pretty cool dude. I attended one of his presentations 3 years ago. Lots of info there

[AntonToo]

Originally Posted by Revolver45

I don't think most christians deny the possibility of micro evolution, IE, species adapting to their surroundings. However the ideas incorporated in the big bang theory and the theory of macro evolution seem unbelievably unreliable and far fetched. The idea behind the big bang theory is clearly that at one point all matter and energy in the universe was contained within an extremely small space or object, and this object was apparently spinning very rapidly. The problem with this is that in order for this object to spin it would need some sort of force acting on the outside of the object, which is impossible if all of the matter and energy were located inside of this object. Furthermore, in order for this object to expode it would need friction acting upon it on the outside, also impossible. There is also a scientific law that states that if a spinning object breaks apart, all of the smaller objects that come from the larger object will spin in the same direction, but it is well known that there are not only planets, but entire galaxies that not only on different axis' than others, but in the exact opposite direction.


Regarding evolution:

I just have 2 questions I would like answered by evolutionists, I'm not being hostile in asking these I'd just like to know. I'm sure these have been asked before but I'd like answers:

Where did the first life come from? The first living cell. How do you get life from nothing?

and second

Where, when and how did the seperation of male and female (in nearly every species on earth) occur?

Word of advice: stick to subject: evolution, you want to talk about big bang theory start a new thread.

Life was not from "nothing", the only God makes something out of nothing supposedly. Obviously scientist don't have a complete answer yet, but I hear the progrees is being made to making life(dna) out on non living matereals. DNA is composed of amino acids and was preceeded by RNA in it's development. I'm not a biology expert though to explain it better. Someone wants to help out?

[CITADEL]

Originally Posted by wade1226

Well, since you're so knowledgable about what all Christians do, then please inform me of which parts I choose to be literal and which parts I choose to be figurative. This should be easy, judging by your blanket statement.

Everytime science disproves a part of the Bible that particular part becomes symbolic of some other meaning. If the Bible was meant to be symbolic I believe it would indicate that at some point, but no where does it do so. A day in the Bibly might equal a period of time? Why did it take the progression of science and the scientific theory of evolution for people to come up with this theory? Why is science changing the way people view the Bible after so many hundreds of years? Why is it not obvious to more Christians that science will completely disprove the Bible?

[Revolver45]

Originally Posted by AntonToo

Word of advice: stick to subject: evolution, you want to talk about big bang theory start a new thread.

I started this thread so I think I'll post what I want, if you'd even looked at the sight you'd realize there's just as much information on it regarding the big bang theory as there is evolution.

[wade1226]

Originally Posted by CITADEL

Everytime science disproves a part of the Bible that particular part becomes symbolic of some other meaning. If the Bible was meant to be symbolic I believe it would indicate that at some point, but no where does it do so. A day in the Bibly might equal a period of time? Why did it take the progression of science and the scientific theory of evolution for people to come up with this theory? Why is science changing the way people view the Bible after so many hundreds of years? Why is it not obvious to more Christians that science will completely disprove the Bible?

Let's start with the last thing first: how will science completely disprove the Bible? Seriously, what will it take for the Bible to be completely disproven - finding the 'missing link' in the theory of evolution? Contact with extraterrestrial beings? What, in your opinion, would completely disprove the Bible?

Next, one has to consider that the books in the Bible were written thousands of years ago, and depending on your perspective, were either made up by or divinely inspired to someone thousands of years ago, and so it will not have the clarity of statement one would expect today, especially after the number of translations it has gone through so that you and I could read it. If we really want to debate this days/periods issue, we need to find someone fluent in ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic (maybe Sanskrit), and find the original texts, and then find the actual words as they were written and then have a discussion on the text.

The reason that science is changing the understanding of the Bible is because modern science allows us to make more correct interpretations of the Bible. Even if the Bible is somehow completely disproven, I have to say the guy who made up the first part of Genesis did a pretty accurate telling of the origins of the universe, especially taking into consideration he did so without the scientific advancements of the last 3000 years.

Just out of curiosity, I would like to hear what parts of the Bible you believe to have been completely disproven.

[CITADEL]

Originally Posted by wade1226

Let's start with the last thing first: how will science completely disprove the Bible? Seriously, what will it take for the Bible to be completely disproven - finding the 'missing link' in the theory of evolution? Contact with extraterrestrial beings? What, in your opinion, would completely disprove the Bible?

Next, one has to consider that the books in the Bible were written thousands of years ago, and depending on your perspective, were either made up by or divinely inspired to someone thousands of years ago, and so it will not have the clarity of statement one would expect today, especially after the number of translations it has gone through so that you and I could read it. If we really want to debate this days/periods issue, we need to find someone fluent in ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic (maybe Sanskrit), and find the original texts, and then find the actual words as they were written and then have a discussion on the text.

The reason that science is changing the understanding of the Bible is because modern science allows us to make more correct interpretations of the Bible. Even if the Bible is somehow completely disproven, I have to say the guy who made up the first part of Genesis did a pretty accurate telling of the origins of the universe, especially taking into consideration he did so without the scientific advancements of the last 3000 years.

Just out of curiosity, I would like to hear what parts of the Bible you believe to have been completely disproven.

Common Sense and Reason, in my humble opinon, is all one needs to disprove the Bible. Try taking a step back and reading the Bible not as a sacred holy book, but as simply a historical book which might hold the answers to our origins and purpose, and once you're done see if anything you read seems logical to you. I know this answer probably doesn't even relate to anything you typed above but I'm rushed because I'm not even suppose to be on my computer right now, so I'll have to take more time with it later tonight.

[wade1226]

Originally Posted by CITADEL

Common Sense and Reason, in my humble opinon, is all one needs to disprove the Bible. Try taking a step back and reading the Bible not as a sacred holy book, but as simply a historical book which might hold the answers to our origins and purpose, and once you're done see if anything you read seems logical to you. I know this answer probably doesn't even relate to anything you typed above but I'm rushed because I'm not even suppose to be on my computer right now, so I'll have to take more time with it later tonight.

Actually, I think the Bible really addresses our purpose, something that I think science might not ever be able to do. As far as origins, I still think the guy who wrote Genesis did a pretty good job for the comprehension that would be expected of someone who lived 3000 years ago.

[AntonToo]

Originally Posted by Revolver45

if you'd even looked at the sight you'd realize there's just as much information on it regarding the big bang theory as there is evolution.

Wtf? You argument makes no sence. Because there is same ammont of information on both topics (which is not true btw), they should be discussed togather?

[Revolver45]

Originally Posted by AntonToo

Wtf? You argument makes no sence. Because there is same ammont of information on both topics (which is not true btw), they should be discussed togather?

First of all, if you explore the entire site, there is only a minimal amount more on evolution than there is on the big bang theory. And yes they should be discussed together, they practically go hand in hand. If someone believes in evolution, they generally believe in the big bang theory as well.

[CITADEL]

Originally Posted by wade1226

Let's start with the last thing first: how will science completely disprove the Bible? Seriously, what will it take for the Bible to be completely disproven - finding the 'missing link' in the theory of evolution? Contact with extraterrestrial beings? What, in your opinion, would completely disprove the Bible?

Next, one has to consider that the books in the Bible were written thousands of years ago, and depending on your perspective, were either made up by or divinely inspired to someone thousands of years ago, and so it will not have the clarity of statement one would expect today, especially after the number of translations it has gone through so that you and I could read it. If we really want to debate this days/periods issue, we need to find someone fluent in ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic (maybe Sanskrit), and find the original texts, and then find the actual words as they were written and then have a discussion on the text.

The reason that science is changing the understanding of the Bible is because modern science allows us to make more correct interpretations of the Bible. Even if the Bible is somehow completely disproven, I have to say the guy who made up the first part of Genesis did a pretty accurate telling of the origins of the universe, especially taking into consideration he did so without the scientific advancements of the last 3000 years.

Just out of curiosity, I would like to hear what parts of the Bible you believe to have been completely disproven.

Why are 'religious texts' the only written works which make absurb claims without providing any proof of their existance (other than simply stating they occured) and are generally accepted as fact by so many people? The miracles of the Bible could not have occured, because the miracles themselves go against the very laws 'god' set into place. Have you ever asked yourself why the only time in history when miracles have occured is when people openly believed in them? Coincidence? You tell me. As for the original texts, they are gone.

People who believe that science is allowing them to make more accurate interpretations of the Bible are the ones who will believe in the accuracy of the Bible regardless of evidence set before them. I believe everything in the Bible regarding the 'supernatural' to have been disproven, and because the scriptures were inspired by god himself, I believe the whole book to be nothing more than a colection of clever writings which set into motion the biggest hoax this world has ever seen.