What will you believe if science recreates the beginings of life?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not if Man was created in gods image. If that is the case then god is a life and life needs an intelligence to be created. You do understand what intelligent design is don't you? You cannot always be when your existence is predicated by another intelligent being.

stop it!!!


my head is spinning.

 

[KittenKoder]

DevNell, you are spot on tonight. LOL Too bad I can't rep you more.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Man was not literally created in the form of God. Just as Jesus was not actually born from some union between God and someone else. Pretty simple concepts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Man was not literally created in the form of God. Just as Jesus was not actually born from some union between God and someone else. Pretty simple concepts.

Simple concepts. But...

Christians not agree on this. So simple yet so divisive.

Where do you get your information to back up your views?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They have. Christians did not one day all chuck the teachings of Christ and become Roman Catholics. The Romans persecuted the Christians, remember? Then the Roman emporor decided to become Christian because he couldn't wipe them out, and when he did that he warped Christianity to include all sorts of weird pagan and Roman beliefs.

and when he did that he warped Christianity to include all sorts of weird pagan and Roman beliefs. - it is this part where you go off the reservation. Christianity under Rome/the Pope and the other Apostolic Sees
under the other Arch Bishops were fighting with weird beliefs as you call them (I believe your version of Baptist beginnings were considered one of them).

But not all Christians "joined up". You're an idiot if you think that's true.

Baptists do not trace their heritage to the Protestant Reformation, but back to Jesus Christ and the Apostolic churches, as we see in the following overview by Curtis Whatley:

”Though many Baptist groups sprang up during the Protestant Reformation, according to Collier’s Encyclopedia, the Baptists have “descended from some of the evangelical ‘sects’ of the preceding age during which the Europe and suppressed all dissent.”


A Catholic, Cardinal Hosius, President of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), wrote during the early years of the Reformation period, “Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater numbers than all the reformers.”
The Baptist Story

Gosh, according to Cardinal Hosius, they existed 1200 years before the reformation...which means they were around while the Roman Catholic church was developing.....

"John Clark Ridpath (1840-1900), a Methodist by denominational conviction, wrote, “I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as 100 A.D., although without doubt there were Baptist churches then, as all Christians were then Baptists.

The premise that first century Christians were Baptists runs counter to the Roman Catholic claim that the first church was Roman Catholic.

To this we need only point out that the first church was organized by Christ and His Apostles, and those Apostles became the nucleus of the church at Jerusalem, not Rome, and James was its leader, not Peter. We also contend that the bishop of Rome did not win primacy over other bishops until the 4th century, and that it wasn’t until Gregory that the Roman bishop began to claim his supremacy over other bishops. Thus we see that Roman Catholicism dates back to the 4th Century at the earliest. ”

the rest is all too cute to get into right now. maybe on another day. my dick is chaffed from all the circle jerking today,

ltr

d.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm not following how.

Glock you posted:

Just because someone might figure out how it was designed doesn't meant that someone didn't design it.

“How it was designed” assumes a designer.

Therefore assumptions must be acceptable to you. So I followed your reasoning and made an assumption which you now have to accept.

And my assumption is that assumptions don't cut it.

 

[Diuretic]

I think you are right. I think they may prove birds are direct descendants of the dinosaur. Look at the pelican!

Sort of pterodactyl-like?

 

[garyd]

Trouble is that wqhich supports evolution also supports a common creator as well.

DNA? What better way can you think of to create self replicating biological organisms, the most simple of whom are so marvelously complex that the overwhelming majority of said creatures - all save one - have never even bothered to try and figure out what makes them tick?

The apparently long history of the earth? Apearances can be and often are decieving, Penn and Teller's whole act is based on that fact. If God is to be - as Christian's maintain - a God revealed by Grace and Grace alone then there must,of course, be some sort of possible other means of creation.

 

[Diuretic]

Trouble is that wqhich supports evolution also supports a common creator as well.

DNA? What better way can you think of to create self replicating biological organisms, the most simple of whom are so marvelously complex that the overwhelming majority of said creatures - all save one - have never even bothered to try and figure out what makes them tick?

The apparently long history of the earth? Apearances can be and often are decieving, Penn and Teller's whole act is based on that fact. If God is to be - as Christian's maintain - a God revealed by Grace and Grace alone then there must,of course, be some sort of possible other means of creation.

No it doesn't. You assume it does.

It's almost as of there are two journeys going on. One is the plodding, step by step journey of science which painstakingly goes through the evidence, building knowledge bit by bit. The other is the, "hurry up, hurry up! I know God did to don't worry about evidence, just hurry up and get to the bit where it says 'Oh look at that, God did it'".

Gary you are assuming and assuming doesn't cut it.

 

[garyd]

And you are assuming the opposite. I've been through the evidence sir several times in fact at various stages of my life. I have not always been a Christian. The evidence for evolution has always struck me as a bit inconclusive and wholly dependent on the assumption that no other possibility could exist.

By the way you offered no proof of error beyond your assumption that I was in error.

 

[garyd]

And you are assuming it doesn't. Give me proof of my error rather than just your assumption that it exists.

 

[Diuretic]

Proof of an error?

Errors presuppose fact. There are no facts here, only assumptions. You've made an assumption. That's it. No questions of facts or proof in that. It's just your opinon and you're entitled to it, but that's all it is, just an opinion.

 

[garyd]

As is your assumption that my opinion on the facts is wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

As is your assumption that my opinion on the facts is wrong.

Facts don't need an opinion. I mean, when gravity need a PR person?

 

[garyd]

That sir is silly. Facts require and interprtation. It is an unquestioned and unchallengeable fact that the universe appears to be quite old. Does that of necessity mean that it is quite old? No, unless of course you believe that David Copperfield really did make the Empire state building vanish...

 

[Zoom-boing]

Not if Man was created in gods image. If that is the case then god is a life and life needs an intelligence to be created.

Oh you can be certain that God is life but no one, no thing, created Him.

You do understand what intelligent design is don't you?

Certainly, it's PC speak for the theological end of things. I'm not sure that you really understand what intelligent design is though.

You cannot always be when your existence is predicated by another intelligent being.

I know it's mind-boggling but God is, was and always will be. No one created Him, He always was. Quite the mystery isn't it? Really challenges one, if you ask me.

Where is the proof that God didn't start it all?

 

[KittenKoder]

That sir is silly. Facts require and interprtation..

There is the biggest flaw in the whole "god dunnit" argument, facts do not require interpretation, myth and legend do. Instead you switched it around and try to interpret that which you cannot interpret and take that which must be interpreted as fact.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And you are assuming the opposite. I've been through the evidence sir several times in fact at various stages of my life. I have not always been a Christian.

The road to Damascus is quite crowded.

The evidence for evolution has always struck me as a bit inconclusive and wholly dependent on the assumption that no other possibility could exist.

"The evidence for evolution ... a bit inconclusive and wholly dependent on the assumption that no other possibility could exist." -- the evidence is inconclusive? d'oh! of course it is, that is why it is called a theory.

now if we were looking for conclusive evidence on the existence of a god where would we find it?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That sir is silly. Facts require and interprtation. It is an unquestioned and unchallengeable fact that the universe appears to be quite old. Does that of necessity mean that it is quite old? No, unless of course you believe that David Copperfield really did make the Empire state building vanish...

the scientific evidence is quite conclusive. the universe is quite old.

the truth is that Copperfield does magic . some people have a belief (same with religion, so you admit) that Copperfield makes things disappear.


one thing is reality. the other is a magical belief

belief requires no evidence, conclusive or not

 

[KittenKoder]

The evidence for evolution has always struck me as a bit inconclusive and wholly dependent on the assumption that no other possibility could exist.

Okay .. THIS is funny! Evolution IS the sum of many possibilities ... so you haven't done your homework in this very well. Also it doesn't even ignore the possibility of any intelligent beings taking a hand in it, so again you missed a lot of homework. Darwin may not have wanted the whole 'god dunnit' argument included for a few reasons, most likely of those because when he proposed the theory he wanted people to look at it without a predetermined mindset so the real answer could be found instead of the simple and escapistic (not a real word I know) answer being applied and then the whole thing forgotten. Evolution does exist, it is the method in which all species have developed the abilities to survive, we see it everyday on a smaller scale with viruses and bacteria, and even the cockroach has shown two evolutionary steps in MY lifetime. Outright denying it is just trying to escape the pursuit of knowledge, and really, what else do we have to do in this modern life except lay down and die?