Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some former Atheists do discover they have faith, but just as many former Christians and others who thought they had faith discover they prefer rational thought.
That's the point. I have always been a logical person. That is why I could not believe in something I could not see. But when I investigated Jesus Christ and the Bible, the Christian faith became logical. Same thing happened to the other former Atheist's I mentioned.
That's the point. I have always been a logical person. That is why I could not believe in something I could not see. But when I investigated Jesus Christ and the Bible, the Christian faith became logical. Same thing happened to the other former Atheist's I mentioned.
Then you developed faith...you still do not have any rational or logical proof for it, nor do you need it. You have faith.
Most young earth believers feel either science is lying/part of a conspiracy, and they aren't as old as is proven, or that their "satan" has put them in place to confuse them, and I have even heard that their "god" did it to test their faith.
Then you developed faith...you still do not have any rational or logical proof for it, nor do you need it. You have faith.
This is probably not the right thread for this discussion, but many proven facts have led me to believe that Jesus is who he says he is. Among the fact's, are the martyred apostles. Jesus appeared to them and ate with them after his resurrection. They were eye-witness'. If this did not happen, they would have died a horrible death for a lie that they knew was a lie. Who would do that... logically?
This is probably not the right thread for this discussion, but many proven facts have led me to believe that Jesus is who he says he is. Among the fact's, are the martyred apostles. Jesus appeared to them and ate with them after his resurrection. They were eye-witness'. If this did not happen, they would have died a horrible death for a lie that they knew was a lie. Who would do that... logically?
You consider that proof? Oh my...wouldn't even pass in a court of law much less work for a peer reviewed scientific paper.
Eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable and these are second and third hand accounts. Also, look at the era these things are said to have happened.....superstition, not a wide variety of scientific knowledge, a mind set of secretcy.....the lists goes on to why these are not logical.
You are going on faith that the accounts of accurate....to bolster your faith....that is okay, you don't need proof to have faith...but don't claim it's logic. It just isn't and doesn't make your case for faith...it will get you laughed at.
"If slow, gradual evolution occurred, you would expect to observe a continuum of change in the fossil record. After all, if life took millions of years to arrive at its' present state of development, the earth should be filled with fossils that could be easily assembled into a number of series showing minor changes as species were evolving.
The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's view of origins."
This is not a sound argument. It is erroneous to argue that the lack of something existing is proof that such evidence does not exist. How many times have atheists said, “Show me proof of God? You have none! Then I conclude this as proof that there is no God.” It is an erroneous conclusion here, and it is an erroneous conclusion to make when looking at the fossil record. While I respect Lee Stroebel as well-educated person, his degrees in Journalism and Law hardly make him any kind of expert on evolution, and his arm-chair reasoning in his books only goes to show how little he knows about the subject – especially to those of us who do understand it. The legitimate conclusions based on the fossil record that support evolution in concrete ways have nothing to do with this line reasoning. Such reasoning only provided a vague intrigue to science to investigate things further. Today, however, only the Christian community touts it as proof that they understand something about evolution. However, it was never presented as proof of evolution, and to say so, is a straw man created and maintained completely outside of evolutionary science.
Mankind has literally catalogued millions of fossils spanning a huge time frame. The vast majority are microscopic organisms. However, despite the voluminous amount of fossils we have, even the most conservative estimates to how much of the fossil record we have actually uncovered – especially in regard to discovering all the creatures in a complete evolutionary chain – is still well under 1% in all cases. With such a small portion of the actual fossil record being uncovered thus far it is an erroneous activity to try and conclude much of anything in terms of successfully reconstructing the exact evolutionary steps that it takes to get from, say, an single-celled organism billions of years ago to modern man.
In fact, the jury is still out on whether or not the fossil record will EVER be able to provide any kind of a true continuum like the one you, Stroebel, and much of the Christian community seem to wait for. This is because the vast majority of organisms never leave a fossil record. Very specific situations need to be around at the time of death in order that the organism fossilizes and only certain kinds of organisms can leave a fossil behind. It will never surprise anyone anywhere, even after tens-of-thousands more years of collecting and cataloguing fossils, that the fossil record contains definitive gaps in it.
Most over-looked, however, among those awaiting such a fine granulated, step-by-step, record to be uncovered in the fossil record, is that such a demand fails to acknowledge the impossibility of such proof. The genes themselves, for which we would undeniably need to provide such level of proof, are never fossilized. Why would anyone, then, think it reasonable to ask for such proof in the first place (unless, of course, they had an ulterior agenda)?
There are real arguments out there that use the fossil record to definitively support evolution, but as long as Christians continue to focus on this straw man discussion, they will never really demonstrate that they have even a fundamental understanding of how evolution and the fossil record are connected.
You consider that proof? Oh my...wouldn't even pass in a court of law much less work for a peer reviewed scientific paper.
Eye-witnesses are notoriously unreliable and these are second and third hand accounts. Also, look at the era these things are said to have happened.....superstition, not a wide variety of scientific knowledge, a mind set of secretcy.....the lists goes on to why these are not logical.
You are going on faith that the accounts of accurate....to bolster your faith....that is okay, you don't need proof to have faith...but don't claim it's logic. It just isn't and doesn't make your case for faith...it will get you laughed at.
Wow, you do have a lot of excuses. That takes faith.
Wow, you do have a lot of excuses. That takes faith.
Well, thank you for showing your true colors here. I won't waste my time speaking with your about this further.
I tried to be nice and not insult your faith, or demand that your actually supply proof for it....and instead you can't even handle that. Your faith must be very weak.
This is probably not the right thread for this discussion, but many proven facts have led me to believe that Jesus is who he says he is. Among the fact's, are the martyred apostles. Jesus appeared to them and ate with them after his resurrection. They were eye-witness'. If this did not happen, they would have died a horrible death for a lie that they knew was a lie. Who would do that... logically?
This is an interesting argument but couldn't you make a similar argument for Muslims who choose to blow themselves up (and often others) for their faith?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
