pianofrieak2

This is illogical, evolution=biology=science. From what logic do you derive that someone who believes in evolution does not blieve in science? I'm sorry. That was my mistake. I meant "supernatural". Of course thoughts alone are not proof for prticular subjects, it's the evidence that backs up those thoughts that gives it weight. This is where I believe you are incorrect. It is your train of thought that one cannot support or even take into account as halfway true or "logical, whatever that term means, if your thoughts are merely chemicals and electrical impulses. How is it usless? Our thoughts still allow us to formualte ideas and influence others towards those ideas. Boy, you missed my entire topic. Try posting more stuff than one sentence before you make a comment that is totally irrelevant to the topic. Oh, I already answered that question in the above so see that too. Science is methodical, not philosophical. Again, from what logic do you derive these conclusions? To dismiss the supernatural is not to dismiss science, considering that conclusions are based on the evidence and phenomenon observed around us. And in most cases, science thaught in schools is able to be proved in a lab We use REASONING to determine what we believe. Science gives us facts and we DEDUCT the conclusion and hypothesize reasons behind those facts. Those are the things that are based upon our chemicals and brain cells; those cannot be trusted. Which I have already proven so please see above. Says you. Now where is the logic? Please read my post before you make such ridiculous comments. Your inablility to comprehend others does in noway make your argument logical.[/code] I know I sound harsh but I'm really annoyed by people who quote 1 sentence and argue that sentence even though they did not even comprehend HALF of what I talked about. So don't hate me for saying this: Your inability to comprehend my view does in no way validate your comments. @Godzira: I talked about our powers of inductive and deductive reasoning. Not the laws of science. You and the person after you refer to your reasonings as clear and factual when, in fact, your reasonings are based upon chemicals and electrical impulses...such things that cannot be trusted to be "logical" if you do not believe in a higher power that created your thoughts with authority to be "logical." Your ability to even debate with me assumes that your thoughts can be trusted, when, in fact, they cannot. At least without the supernatural realm, specifically God, a Creator.

Aye, it is known that the Earth does occasionally go through such a cycle, however, we DEFINITELY aren't helping anything. Hav you actually researched the topic of global warming? Do you know how one determines global warming and just how much we are prophesied to grow? Do you know of the Kyoto Treaty and everything we have done to slow it down? Do you know what it would take to do all that the environmentalists tell us to do? Giving us some of your "scary" information on the background might be nice.

Rilha, I have four words to say: A State of Fear. :wink:

Thank you for the great comment. :P

You're right...that's according to the book. The book was alright. But still...we all know how accurate the Da Vinci Code is. Please don't believe whatever people talk about. :wall: *from somewhere in the back* "And we all know that everything you see on tv is real, kids."

There has never been a universal flood and that dude didn't cross the Red Sea with all the jews. That dude would be Moses. :wink: And, actually, gandalf that's a tough question. I can think of many inconsistencies that, at first glance, seem to be odd and contradictory. Be careful what you ask for. Oh, by the way, I just read C.S. Lewis' argument against evolution. It's quite interesting...not even scientific. Based purely on logic. I love it! :D

Boy, I agree with you there. Although Christianity doesn't call for a libertarian society... I guess I'm a Christian libertarian? :P BTW, what the heck is Bush doing by signing the Real ID act????? :wall:

I dont believe that there is jail. So, if I dont believe that a jail exists I cant go there! Just because you dont believe that something is not real doesnt mean it isnt there, and that you cant go there... There is no solid proof that your not a frog, or a monkey. There isnt even solid proof saying that what we see is real. There isnt a solid proof that you or I even EXIST! Well thats all I had to say... We don't exist? Read Descartes. Descartes: "I think. Therefore, I am." How do we know Descartes was right? Do plants think? Are they not alive? And Gandalf, I see your point. But we know we're not monkeys or frogs because of our DEFINITIONS of monkeys and frogs. Still, I like your example.

I think the Mavs will win. If they have a great second quarter like they did before (down by 18 to be ahead by 13 in 1.5 quarters????) then there's no way they'll lose. Shaq's good but not invincible. Just stay out of foul trouble and they'll be fine. Like azn said, Josh Howard guarding Wade should be quite interesting. :)

Lol, this is hilarious.

Actually, Ghost, a religion is defined as:

Oh, come on now. He never said those who don't believe in God are evil. I don't know why you think that... Back on topic, I believe his "problem with evolution" is a major problem with not believing in a God. But still...that's just one problem. Now to address your points. Well, it's a good thing God's not like that. And besides, God is truth so He would want you to follow Him, that is, the Truth. Not any false religions which are...opposite of truth...lies. God wants everyone to follow after Himself. See above point. I would say that every religion has brought others from other religions to follow after their path. It's not one-sided, by any means. And, yes, atheism is a religion.

To address your question, let me give you some background information. The Bible specifically refers to two dinosours. I really can't remember the second one, but the one I do remember is called "leviathan," an animal similar to the crocodile but much bigger and stronger. It is mentioned many times in Job, referring to God's majestic power in creation. I think it breathes fire and has skin like steel. Here are some verses: Job 3:8 Job 41:1 Job 41:1-3 Psalm 74:14 Psalm 74:13-15 Psalm 104:26 Psalm 104:25-27 Isaiah 27:1 Job 3:3 "Obliterate the day I was born. Blank out the night I was conceived! Let it be a black hole in space. May God above forget it ever happened. Erase it from the books! May the day of my birth be buried in deep darkness, shrouded by the fog, swallowed by the night. And the night of my conceptionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ã

Are you kidding me? I actually thought it was always in favor of the religious, with the atheists/agnostics changing the topics continually. Try reading the past 63 pages and see for yourself. Yes, science is irrelevant to God's existence, but, then again, science would have to point to the existence of God... Scientists make up stuff? Um...yeah. Are you completely ignorant of the many transitionary fossils they "found". Miller-Urey experiment? Its claim that proteins can be made from nothing? Again, false. But, then again, this was on page 50 or so and you probably haven't seen it. And by the way, if you're referring to the bible having an unnamed author, it was actually composed over 1500 years with over 40 different authors. :wink: As do I...but for the atheistic side. Thank you for stating the obvious. Perhaps they try to prove themselves right out of love? They believe that their religion is the truth, and they care enough about others to make sure that other people know the truth. And if you haven't noticed, every institution than humans are involved in is corrupted, not just religion. It's much more logical to say that humans are inherantly corrupt, rather than that religion is inherantly corrupt. Well put, Astra. Wow, you REALLY missed the past 64 pages. You sound so strong, and yet if you actually THOUGHT about it, you'd see the theists have much more evidence in their favor. For proof, I say read the past 64 pages. OK, now you're treading the dangerous ground of ad-hominem arguments. Instead of addressing our arguments, you merely say we're stupid. Veeery convincing...

Oh really? Gee whiz. I didn't realise that. I guess I must be a closet christian then. IT WAS A JOKE :roll: It's ok, anesthesia, we all knew it was coming sooner or later. You might as well just tell the world what you REALLY believe. :wink:

Nothing, but if God is infallible and has foresight then you don't have free will over decisions. If God is always right and he knows youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re going to do X instead of Y, then the only option you can take is X otherwise god is wrong (is fallible and doesn't have foresight). What's the point of God having foresight if it doesn't turn out to be true; it may as well be a guess. Not exactly. God is infallible and has foresight because He is everywhere in time. If He is everywhere at all times, then He certainly knows the future as well as the past and the present. God knows you'll do X instead of Y but you're still choosing to do X. You, in the situation, have the option to do both X and Y but you do X, just like God knows you will. Your choice still exists. Actually, love can be quite strange at times. The Fight or Flight Response is what our natural decisions are based on. Especially when something surprising comes out. Fight or flight. Now, what happens if a man runs into a burning building to save his daughter. He's not fighting the fire, nor is he running away. Why would he risk his life for his daughter? To a rational mind, saving another person at your own risk (where you BOTH might die) just doesn't make any sense. And yet many fathers would die for their family. That's what makes love different. Again I would disagree. The supernatural is not natural, but because the supernatural CREATED the natural, it certainly has dominion OVER the natural. It can interfere if it so desires. A lot of traits and ALL of our traits are two very different things.

why 72 wouldnt 30 be fine? Sometimes it takes a bit of time for the feeling of "I royally screwed this up" to sink in :wink: Lol. Actually, I'd wish for a remote control that can fast-forward or rewind certain events in my life. (or pause them while my kid totally beats up this other kid). :wink:

That was exactly my point...3 posts ago. But, you see, there's no alternative if you don't believe in the supernatural. Everything must be explained by science and by chemical reactions in your head. Thus, love is just a product of your brain cells interacting. Everything is determined by your genetics, your environment, and your past. You're just an animal with instincts. Without God, that is...

You have certainly gained my respect, for you know what you believe and what that makes you. (Existential nihilist that is) If only Christians could be that knowledgeable... :(

How come God's foreknowledge has come to mean the absence of free will? :? *sigh* It's amazing how these posts are written as soon as the heavy hitters leave.

Anesthesia, as my probably-last post in this topic, I wanted to let you know that you made a great point about that Scripture. I really don't know how to combat it right now, but if you'd like, I would love to ask some Christian friends of mine and see what their view is. If so, just pm me and I'd love to find an answer for you. As of right now, I still believe the Bible is against active euthenasia, where you have a degenerative disease and know you will eventually die from it. I already quoted 3 Scriptures proving why I believe what I believe. If you missed them, then please look back on the first page. As for Necromagus... It's not about the Bible, but since the Bible shows my viewpoint, and how I'm the only one AGAINST it, I'd say it plays an important role. Either way, Romans 1 talks about homosexuality, so it's not like Leviticus is the only part in the Bible against it. And then about your friend: In Scripture, God says that He will not allow us to endure something that we cannot stand. Since God is omniscient, I'm thinking he's pretty smart and would not lie to us. Now, if God knows we can endure it, then He also sees the outcome of our results. Maybe your friend would have a terribly painful life, but she could talk about fighting until the very end. She could show others the hope she has in Christ and reveal the "peace that transcends all understanding" to the other patients in that hospital ward. Maybe she'll have an opportunity to tell others about her disease and raise awareness for it. Instead of just euthenizing herself, she could go out fighting, even though it is extremely painful. She could make a difference in the world like that, which, I believe, is what God would want her to do. About someone else's "God's temple" comment, let me say that in salvation, God never leaves. Once you accept Him, He never leaves and He would never have abandoned you in your hour of need. When we die, we simply change locations. We go from being in the earth to being in heaven, so it's really not a bad transition at all! :D So many of you keep saying how the body needs to have "use" and "worth", but how do you define worth? If someone is a quadriplegic, should we just kill them because they're not "worth" anything to society? How does one quantify worth and use? Only God knows when her "temple", or her body, is "useless". But, then again, it never really is because we are all created by God with unique purpose and giftings. How do you define living? How do you quantify purpose? Again, it goes back to that whole argument that life has inherent purpose. Now for Anesthesia: You made your entire post on how I'm such a fanatical fundamentalist Christian. You used, I must say, great Scriptures showing your point. But your way of proving it seemed a little harsh to me. You slam me because I don't understand those in the situation (which I don't and never claimed to), but morality is not determined by emotions and feelings. And you never addressed my statement that you don't know what it's like to be killed in the womb even though you advocate abortion. You slam me because you say I'm "pompous" and "dogmatic." I suppose I do not mind being dogmatic since God wants us to be sold out for Him and for His purposes. We should not stray to the left or the right, as the Scripture says. You say I'm pompous yet I never condemned anyone to hell or made ad-hominem arguments because I disagreed with them. When you made those kinds of claims (which were ad-hominem arguments...you made ME look bad instead of addressing my arguments) you never supported them which is why I asked for proof. And then of course your whole second post just made fun of me for asking you to clarify why I was being "pompous" and "dogmatic" I'm really not mad at you. I've already forgiven you for that. But it hurts me that you would resort to being so, I daresay, hateful in your comments towards me. You consistently slam anyone who disagrees with you, so is there something in your past that makes you hate God? It seems to me that way. Anyway, I wanted to close by saying that I still love you as a created, loved, unique person in God. You are a wonderful human being with such great purpose. Maybe we can talk sometime. I assure you that God DOES care about the lives of non-Christians. He cares about each human being. After all, everyone is His creation. Some may choose to love Him which is an extra blessing. But He loves being your Dad, regardless. Your "endless line of divine massacres", if you're referring to the crusades, Salem witch hunts, and Spanish Inquisition was done by those who called themselves Christians but did not follow after Christ's teachings. I am a Christian but I would call myself a Christ-follower. That way I get rid of those terrible stereotypes.

LOl, bull, you've made 3 posts in a row. I'm trying to let this post die, as is everyone else by now, so if you'd like to know why I, as a follower of Jesus, disagree with your statement, then please pm me. Otherwise, it kind of seems as though you're talking to the air. If you know what I mean. Anyway, please just let this topic die. I think it's ready to be out of here, but if you'd like to know my viewpoint, then just please pm me. Thank you. -pianofrieak2

Until insane responds...let me remark on this. 1. DNA-how does that prove evolution? 2. Big Bang proof--hmm...where did the stuff for the Big Bang come from? 3. Fossil Record-Actually, there is far less proof than there should be. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History said he would have included any known transitionary fossils in his book "evolution". He included 0. :? 4. Building Blocks of life-Miller/Urey experiment? That's easy to disprove, but I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. 5. Planets orbiting stars? Proves what? 6. Power of Atom-huh? 7. Fission/Fusion/how the sun works-evolution? Does what? 8. Age of earth-pure guesswork 9. Radiation-It's hard to use carbon-dating since we have no idea how much carbon was in the original earth. We're ASSUMING the amount of Carbon has remained the same...but wait...it disintegrates... 10. Space Travel/Set foot on moon-Actually, the astronauts had to jump down to the moon because, according to our theories about the age of the universe, there would have been over 3' of moon dust. In actuality, there was a few inches. So they had to jump down. ???

Pompous manner? I see no proof of that. Dogma related to morality and faith? Even you have matters of morality and faith...so you're also dogmatic. Point? Proof please? "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)" The old testament was before God revealed himself to the Israelites. God had not yet taken upon their sin, so they had to continually atone for it by sacrifices. That is the main difference before the Old and the New Testament. The NT focuses on the attitudes of the heart whereas the OT focuses on one's actions. Now, when you say slavery, you are referring to servanthood. Since that is exactly what slavery was at the time. You can't just take a term which has changed meaning over time and use it to your advantage. Jesus was fully man and fully divine. If he was not fully man he could not die. If he was not fully divine, he could not take on the sins of the world. Thus, to accomplish his purposes, he had to be both at the same time. Proof? Well, read the Bible. We can go into debating the character of Jesus, but if you're interested in that, then pm me. This is the wrong topic for that. Asking for proof makes me look stupid? Hmm... Asking for proof when it's an opinion? Why put forth an argument if it's opinion. Your last sentence is your own opinion and will not be addressed. Your example is invalid. Read the words you used: I don't have a right to deprive others of euthenizing (I assume you mean euthanising/euthanizing) THEMSELVES If you don't agree with murdering, then don't deprive my rights of being able to murder someone. Stopping someone killing themselves because they want to die compared to you taking someone else's life against their wishes. Invalid. My example is invalid? I still fail to see why. I just used a radical example to prove my point. What was my point? My point was that telling someone, if they disagree with what you say, to "just not do it" is completely ridiculous. If I disagree with you euthenizing yourself, then I shouldn't do it? How about murder? Or abortion, as so many abortion-advocates put forth. It doesn't make any sense. My point is still valid. The words were different because it was a different example. Cool?