Why do the anti God crowd attack the bible ?

[cbirch2]

Lol can you explain one thing to me.

Me and a few other have provided evidence for evolution for 44 pages and youve jumped through hoops to try to disprove all the evidence. Youve claimed the concrete physics of the atom must have changed, that sexual reproduction worked by an entirely different mechanism, than god is moving the planets with his hands, and that somehow genes cant spread through a population (something you have yet to provide one piece of evidence for, or rebutted our evidence against). So youve gone so far as to say the laws of physics must change for our evidence to be wrong, but you have yet to provide any evidence of god. None. Youve spent 44 pages going to all extremes to prove us wrong, but wheres your evidence smart man?

We might be completely and totally wrong, but you have yet to even attempt to make your case as to why i should believe jesus christ was the son of god. What a small group of nomadic arabs believed and copied two millenia ago means really nothing to me or most other logically thinking people.

 

[cbirch2]

Lol i feel like the problem with this debate is that you expect a species to diverge within your life time. Like the dog will give birth to the super dog or something.

Where in evolutionary theory does it say that speciation occurs over such a small span of time.

 

[AllieBaba]

Where is the proof that it ever created a new species?

 

[Sky Dancer]

I like your christ...I do not like your christians...christians are so unlike your Christ

ghandi

"I ain't afraid of your Jesus. I ain't afraid of your Yahweh. I ain't afraid of your Allah, I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God."

Holly Near

It is not about the Bible. For me, it is about how so many people can call themselves Christians and stray so far from the God of Love Christ portrayed. Try going to the web site Budget Hero and do up a national budget that Jesus would write per the New Testament and then look at the budget the Christian Right wants. Jesus was not a war monger seeking to enrich the super wealthy by taking fromt the needy.

Some Christians practice the God of Love. Others practice the God of hate. (I'm thinking of Scott Lively and Martin Ssempa).

I'll check out the website you mentioned. Thanks.

I get the impression that unless we agree that the Bible should be taught in science class we're considered "bible bashers".

 

[AllieBaba]

I got an A in science, took a full year of college biology, and a full term of genetics.

These guys did well in science and aren't bible bashers...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)

Chudnovsky brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And Sky, I forgive you. I hope we can be as sisters now. God and I love you very much.

 

[Steelplate]

Why would i have an open mind to things i find offensive ?

What is the difference in having faith in the bible and faith in mans philosophy ? The bible is much more reliable.

Why should you have an open mind to things YOU find offensive? Read that question 2 or 3 more times and give me a straight answer. You should very MUCH have an open mind because YOU are not the decider of such things.

I am an honest person or try to be as best as i can.I will not placate to a lie. Dang that's twice i had to use that word.

I am the decider in what i will believe, and what i will teach. I don't take lightly my many years of research and study on these issues.

Ahhhh... you are speaking of pride. which is also a sin to God. What you don't get is that no matter how many years of research you have done, no matter how much studying you have done.... your conclusions are still faith based, and that's not enough for a non-believer and never will be. You can quote scripture after scripture, but it means nothing to them.

and do you know what? That's OK. They are entitled to their beliefs just as you are entitled to yours. There's not a thing wrong with saying "you see it your way, and I see it mine... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."

That's not placating... that's not giving in. That's letting people live and let live. If they still ridicule you for your beliefs.... then that sin and burden is on them, not you.

The bottom line is we should all be allowed to be who we are without ridicule and persecution. You don't have to agree with another person's beliefs or actions to be brothers. You do have to extend the olive branch though... and that's what Christ's message is. Even upon his imminent death he spoke the words "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." That should be our way... that should be what we strive for...even though we are bound to fall short quite often in our lives.

But you're right... You go ahead and decide what you believe and teach...But do try to keep those kinds of things in mind when you do. Not that I'm trying to tell you what to do... just consider it some friendly advice amongst brothers in Christ.

 

[Steelplate]

He needs an army to destroy all the wicked that is on the earth.

An all powerful being with the ability to create and destroy does not need an army to destroy the wicked. Not that I am judging you, my brother... but how weak is your faith?

That is correct, but that is what's gonna take place and in the time frame he wants it accomplished.

I was just questioning your post on him "needing" an army.

 

[Steelplate]

I like your christ...I do not like your christians...christians are so unlike your Christ

ghandi

"I ain't afraid of your Jesus. I ain't afraid of your Yahweh. I ain't afraid of your Allah, I'm afraid of what you do in the name of your God."

Holly Near

It is not about the Bible. For me, it is about how so many people can call themselves Christians and stray so far from the God of Love Christ portrayed. Try going to the web site Budget Hero and do up a national budget that Jesus would write per the New Testament and then look at the budget the Christian Right wants. Jesus was not a war monger seeking to enrich the super wealthy by taking fromt the needy.

That's kind of my philosophy too. There is so much more to Christ's message than the written word can portray. Jesus wouldn't approve of what's happening here in our country... the fighting, the slanderous lies, the insinuations and accusations that our own brethren are evil or enemies because we simply believe in a more liberal political philosophy. It flies in the face of everything Christ stood for. Not only that... but Christ was the champion of the sinner, the poor, the weak. he rebuked the wealthy, the powerful and the oppressors of the world.

That's what i meant in previous posts where Christians get so hung up on semantics and the rules of the religion, they tend to sometimes lose the real message of Christ's time on the Earth.

Personally, I don't care if someone believes in Evolution over Creationism. I do want them to know that Christ is always there for them if they ever feel the need for him. He will never turn anyone away from him... no matter what they've said, thought or done. That's called unconditional or "agape" love. Something we as Humans aren't all that capable of.

 

[Monnagonna]

Nope, just saying that if you want to equate an understanding of science with lack of faith, you are a sadly misguided and ignorant soul.

Since I never said it's one or the other, you can have a phd and believe in god, it's just that your phd doesn't confer you any more credibility. You can be the smartest guy in the world with 10 phds, but if you believe in god as though it really exists, you're still a dumbfuck.

 

[AllieBaba]

Nope, just saying that if you want to equate an understanding of science with lack of faith, you are a sadly misguided and ignorant soul.

Since I never said it's one or the other, you can have a phd and believe in god, it's just that your phd doesn't confer you any more credibility. You can be the smartest guy in the world with 10 phds, but if you believe in god as though it really exists, you're still a dumbfuck.

If you're basing that on the belief that science rules out the existence of God, then you're the dumbfuck, I'm afraid.

 

[Monnagonna]

Nope, just saying that if you want to equate an understanding of science with lack of faith, you are a sadly misguided and ignorant soul.

Since I never said it's one or the other, you can have a phd and believe in god, it's just that your phd doesn't confer you any more credibility. You can be the smartest guy in the world with 10 phds, but if you believe in god as though it really exists, you're still a dumbfuck.

If you're basing that on the belief that science rules out the existence of God, then you're the dumbfuck, I'm afraid.

Never said that, I'm an agnostic, so the presence or absence of a god hasn't been proven nor disproved. But until proof is given, there is no god. If you ever find real tangible proof, I'm open to changing my mind.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lol i feel like the problem with this debate is that you expect a species to diverge within your life time. Like the dog will give birth to the super dog or something.

Where in evolutionary theory does it say that speciation occurs over such a small span of time.

I am having a problem with my internet service I am replying off my phone and I don't like to,this smart phone has a mind of It's own. This will be my only response until the internet service is working again. I don't expect macro evolution to occur no matter how much time is given. It's very simple to prove my point. Offspring gain all the genes from each parent,not all the genes are used. That's why sometimes a child will only resemble one parent. What happens to the unused information ? We know that when reproducing whether asexual or sexual that the parent can only produce from the information available. That is why I say over each generation,the gene pool gets smaller and smaller. How do we know this because the boxer only has the genetic information to produce a boxer. The mutt only has genetic information to produce a dog. So in the case of the Kurt they have such a diverse amount of genetic information that there is no telling what the offspring will look like Genetics are reliable that is how so many purebreds were created. Once they got what they wanted they only breed to other purebreds. In humans if the gene pool or population was interracial from all races of mankind our gene pool would be like the mutt having a much larger gene pool. If all races were isolated from each other the gene pool would become smaller and there would only be enough genetic information to reproduce that race. So the human only has the genetic information to produce a human a dog only has the genetic information to produce a dog. The mutation arguement please see Dr. Spetners arguement as to why the mutation arguement is not viable and respond. Like it or not this is what the observable evidence supports and the bible says ten times in genesis that kinds only bring forth after their kinds.

 

[AllieBaba]

Since I never said it's one or the other, you can have a phd and believe in god, it's just that your phd doesn't confer you any more credibility. You can be the smartest guy in the world with 10 phds, but if you believe in god as though it really exists, you're still a dumbfuck.

If you're basing that on the belief that science rules out the existence of God, then you're the dumbfuck, I'm afraid.

Never said that, I'm an agnostic, so the presence or absence of a god hasn't been proven nor disproved. But until proof is given, there is no god. If you ever find real tangible proof, I'm open to changing my mind.

And I understand that.

What I don't understand is the compulsion many have to actively bash the bible and Christians.

For example, why do non-believers think it matters who they think is a *good* Christian or a *bad* Christian? Why is it any of their business? They don't believe it anyway, why are they driven to constantly judge Christians on their Christianity?

Not only is it annoying, it's dishonest. The one thing all Christians believe is that all of us are sinners. Nobody is a perfect Christian. And yet non believers seem to expect that, and get angry and antagonistic because we aren't. What's up with that? I've been a Baptist for decades...I've NEVER heard a Baptist hold himself up as an example of a perfect person or a perfect Christian. I've never heard a Christian do that. I've never seen a Christian get into somebody's face and tell them what they should believe. Yet I hear all the time from non-believers that this happens all the time. I call bullshit. I think they misinterpret what they hear and see, or they are just lying out of hate for those of faith.

 

[cbirch2]

Lol i feel like the problem with this debate is that you expect a species to diverge within your life time. Like the dog will give birth to the super dog or something.

Where in evolutionary theory does it say that speciation occurs over such a small span of time.

I am having a problem with my internet service I am replying off my phone and I don't like to,this smart phone has a mind of It's own. This will be my only response until the internet service is working again. I don't expect macro evolution to occur no matter how much time is given. It's very simple to prove my point. Offspring gain all the genes from each parent,not all the genes are used. That's why sometimes a child will only resemble one parent. What happens to the unused information ? We know that when reproducing whether asexual or sexual that the parent can only produce from the information available. That is why I say over each generation,the gene pool gets smaller and smaller. How do we know this because the boxer only has the genetic information to produce a boxer. The mutt only has genetic information to produce a dog. So in the case of the Kurt they have such a diverse amount of genetic information that there is no telling what the offspring will look like Genetics are reliable that is how so many purebreds were created. Once they got what they wanted they only breed to other purebreds. In humans if the gene pool or population was interracial from all races of mankind our gene pool would be like the mutt having a much larger gene pool. If all races were isolated from each other the gene pool would become smaller and there would only be enough genetic information to reproduce that race. So the human only has the genetic information to produce a human a dog only has the genetic information to produce a dog. The mutation arguement please see Dr. Spetners arguement as to why the mutation arguement is not viable and respond. Like it or not this is what the observable evidence supports and the bible says ten times in genesis that kinds only bring forth after their kinds.

Each gamete only contains half the information of each parent!

"Offspring gain all the genes from each parent,not all the genes are used."

No. The offspring receive 23 chromosomes from each parent, thats half. any given sperm/egg cell (gamete) does not contain a full genetic copy of the parents DNA, it contains half. Therefore your entire argument that the gene pool gets smaller is false, an organism uses all the DNA its created with.

Genetic arent reliable, they work with probability. If you dont know that you dont know anything about genetics. Organisms inherit genotypes from their parents on a probabilistic basis because each parent only contributes a random half of its DNA to the offspring.

Your whole argument hinges on the idea that each parent contributes all of its DNA to the offspring and that offspring only uses the parts it needs. Thats totally wrong. Each parent only contributes half of its DNA and the offspring uses all of it. Your wrong.

 

[cbirch2]

And since youve abandoned your Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium lets talk more about the hominid skulls.

What organisms did those skulls come from? Why does homo erectus look almost exactly like man, and Australopithecus look almost exactly like an ape, and were able to draw a direct link between the two?

And lets get back to fossil dating. How do you explain the KT boundary? The KT boundary is a layer of rock easily identifiable all over the world. Dinosaur fossils are normally found below it, along with most other organisms we consider ancient and extinct, and modern mammals are found mostly above it.

How do you explain that? If the same type of fossil is found in the same rock layer at different locations, and different types of radiometric dating give the same date for multiple similar specimens, and those dates agree with the date based on the location in the rock strata, how is that not a valid date? How much more evidence could you possibly get?

 

[cbirch2]

Lol if good mutations cant spread through a population you should probably explain antibiotic resistant bacteria.

A small portion of the bacteria population receives, either as a mutation or a gene passed along, a trait that makes them resistant to penicillin. As the population that isnt resistant dies off due to the drug, the population that is resistant reproduces unhindered. Therefore the resistant bacteria end up making up the entire population as the nonresistant bacteria slowly die off.

Therefore the beneficial gene has spread throughout the population. How do you not get this?

 

[cbirch2]

Lol i feel like the problem with this debate is that you expect a species to diverge within your life time. Like the dog will give birth to the super dog or something.

Where in evolutionary theory does it say that speciation occurs over such a small span of time.

I am having a problem with my internet service I am replying off my phone and I don't like to,this smart phone has a mind of It's own. This will be my only response until the internet service is working again.

Then you should probably root that smartphone and get wireless tether, friend.

 

[cbirch2]

Where is the proof that it ever created a new species?

The title of the article is new species retard. They have the time line that the ancestor traveled from southern California to the Colorado river. The populations became isolated on adapted to the specific environment of each side of the river.

The proof its a separate species is that its genetics have diversified enough to be considered a separate species. Or in your mind did god create the definition of the word species as well?

O wait...i think we already know the answer to that...

"Alliebaba defines gods creation based on how biologists classify animals..."

 

[Yoda]

Outside of those few idiots in N.Y. I've only been witness to "Christians" attacking atheist. I, personally, cannot believe and if I'm wrong, then it's my price to pay. Thorough all of our conversations (and this post as well), all of you're evidence has been interpretation and circular logic.

The bible is correct because God says so.
God is always correct because the bible says so.

Do you not see it? Every "evidence" you have presented has been nothing but YOUR interpretation of scripture. You denounce science, but hold it as a trophy if it fits your religious view and I see that as completely self-serving. Much like the prophecies. Did God fulfill them, or did man fulfill them for scriptures sake?

If you truly have faith in God (and I commend you for sticking to your guns and what you believe), then why do you have to defend and/or justify it? Isn't your love for Christ good enough? Isn't the fact that you try to justify and defend your love for God is an act of contradiction of faith? Nothing I or anyone else can say should ever have an impact on your relationship with Jesus and by the same token, there is nothing in scripture that will suddenly kindle that relationship with those who don't believe.

Why do you keep torturing yourself with such issues of others disbelief?

 

[cbirch2]

Outside of those few idiots in N.Y. I've only been witness to "Christians" attacking atheist. I, personally, cannot believe and if I'm wrong, then it's my price to pay. Thorough all of our conversations (and this post as well), all of you're evidence has been interpretation and circular logic.

The bible is correct because God says so.
God is always correct because the bible says so.

Do you not see it? Every "evidence" you have presented has been nothing but YOUR interpretation of scripture. You denounce science, but hold it as a trophy if it fits your religious view and I see that as completely self-serving. Much like the prophecies. Did God fulfill them, or did man fulfill them for scriptures sake?

If you truly have faith in God (and I commend you for sticking to your guns and what you believe), then why do you have to defend and/or justify it? Isn't your love for Christ good enough? Isn't the fact that you try to justify and defend your love for God is an act of contradiction of faith? Nothing I or anyone else can say should ever have an impact on your relationship with Jesus and by the same token, there is nothing in scripture that will suddenly kindle that relationship with those who don't believe.

Why do you keep torturing yourself with such issues of others disbelief?

Your missing the point. Thats not why they do it. They do it because they were raised to believe all this non sense. Theyve never once seen anything in the real world that would confirm their psychotic beliefs so they have to come here to argue. The more we argue the more it reinforces their belief because everytime we say something smart and they dont know what were talking about they just resort to "lol brainwashed fool think hes spouting facts" so that they dont have to respond with anything remotely educated.

On the other hand, i found allie in politics and followed him here because hes just so damn fun.