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.
Tell me does science love you? can it save you from hell? NO so why rely on something that can't even give you greatness
Well when you have your heart attack Malachi, I hope you're not going to be a hypocrit and accept help from science. I really hope you're going to say "Oh no doctor, please don't bother to save my life. Go and attend that person with the cut on his finger instead."
Tell me does science love you? can it save you from hell? NO so why rely on something that can't even give you greatness but hey just because it's a Christian website doesint mean you can't go proov them wrong quit making excuses to avoid being prooved wrong.
And yet again, from yet another CD member, talk of "love" immediately followed by nastiness.
The proof is in the pudding. I see an awful lot of angry Christians who freak out when alternate ideas are put forth. Who get *angry* over this. Who make threats (especially hell...see Malachi's previous post) to frighten other people over to their way of thinking. This is love? No. This is panic. A frank and barely veiled, or not even veiled, hostility toward others who don't think as they do. The *main reason* I realize Christianity is a false religion is watching *the products of* that religion...its followers. If this were a true, good, and "saving" religion, I doubt it would create so many easily infuriated people.
If you truly believe you're right...why are you arguing? It's obvious why we non-Christians are arguing. We're arguing because we do accept current science into our thinking, we are in fact adaptable, and it absolutely puzzles us as to how anyone could refuse to ever change...even over a period of 2000 years. But you people? Jesus supposedly said that you are to tell the "good news", and if people don't listen, move on. Yet you don't...you fight to the death on stuff like this. We non-Christians do not subscribe to any book telling us to say certain things and then move along. We are *allowed* to go ahead and keep questioning and keep trying to find answers...is that what you're jealous of? in other words...we're not forced to be hypocrites. We're doing what we do best: questioning, wondering, and yes, changing our minds if new evidence crops up (which science does all the time, making new discoveries and rather than screaming "That's not how it was written 2000 years ago!", instead saying, "Wow, this is new, how cool").
So what's your real reason for being here? Love? Oh spare me. Worry about saving people? Again, what did Jesus tell you? Spread the news and move on. Discuss new thoughts? Obviously not. New thoughts freak you out entirely and engender devensiveness and then threats of hell. No...I think something, something indefinable, about Christianity makes people hostile, angry, bitter and makes them want to have an excuse to point a finger at others with the "you're going to hell" stuff. I NEVER want to belong to a cult like that. The undercurrent of hatred and hostility just does not go along with the idea of "God" to me. When I'm angry, I say so. I don't fix a baleful glare and clip through clenched teeth, "I'll pray for you. You're going to need it!" or "God loves you, ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO SEE THAT? If you can't see God's love, well then, I guess I'll be laughing up in heaven when you're in hell!" Nobody is sensing any irony at all in some of these "Christian" posts that keep talking about "love," immediately followed by some type of threat or insult? If you people are so sure of yourselves...why do you need to threaten us with hell just for having alternate evidence? I've seen a lot of nastiness from non-Christians, it is true, and have been nasty myself...but one thing I've never said was "Well, once we're dead, and you're suffering and I'm not, then you'll see". Or, to put the scientific version of the Christian threat out there, maybe something like, "Well, just wait until you get cancer. Since you were so cynical about and judgemental of science all your life, hopefully, doctors will be angry at you and refuse to cure you. And you'll die in horrible pain and suffering." But there is NO hesitation before saying, "Just wait until you're dead. Since you were so cynical about God, you'll suffer and suffer." (smacking forehead) "Love" my *ss.
Well i never got angry and also i argue in hope to help you be saved from where science is going to lead you it's not that i'm threatend but i care for you soul because nobody deserves HELL!!!.
Well i never got angry and also i argue in hope to help you be saved from where science is going to lead you it's not that i'm threatend but i care for you soul because nobody deserves HELL!!!.
Well I'm glad to hear this--I must have misunderstood based on the fact that you immediately pulled out the hell card previously:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi
Tell me does science love you? can it save you from hell?
...and am puzzled by this apparent new definition of non-nastiness, which would include such gems as:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi
quit making excuses to avoid being prooved (sic) wrong.
Well i never got angry and also i argue in hope to help you be saved from where science is going to lead you it's not that i'm threatend but i care for you soul because nobody deserves HELL!!!.
Personally I think if people put forth more effort into discouraging crime in this country than going to hell this place might be a little better. We know jail exists for certain. You don't hear preachers talk about repenting your evil ways so as not to end up in jail. This is the life we have right now. We know it as a definite. If we're going to push anything it should be not to commit crimes so as not to go to jail. After all, jail would be considered hell on earth in my opinion. We might as well fix the here and now instead of the unknown future.
Acctually lucy left palantologists confused because recent study's show lucy may not be human after all. In the June, 11, 1990 issue of time magazine publushed a article explaining how "Geologist show how carbon dating can be way off".
This is because evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale for grown ups like i said please present proof that evolution exists you can go to Intelligent Design versus Evolution and if you can present proof you will win 10,000 dolars become famouse and proov GOD to be false.
LOL no we havent evolved and what you just explained is "microevolution" which is adaptation with in a species but it is way different then evolution evolution is when one form of species transforms into another species and microevolution is adaptation within a species wich has not changed so the scorpion having eye's is not evolution but it is microevolution the scorpion is still a scorpion not some different species from when it was born and this goes for every thing else we and animals adapt to our enviroment but we do not become a different species.
He also said there needs to be hundreds of transitional forms of animals to proove evolution and ya know what not even one has been found in the history of the earth and he also said if it hasint been prooven with in a hundred years then his theory should be discarded and it's been past a hundred years and not one has been fount so you ponder that.THNX
Oh and this reply is for solidsquid also.
Your right "Lucy" was not Human.. she was an ancestor. Carbon dating is far more conclusive than bible math.
The proof is substantial and unequivecal. Rejecting DNA evidence is like rejecting that the sun is a star. I'm not going to some religious website for unfactual information. Like I said earlier, the overwhelming majority of the first world aren't even in debate over evolution.
Micro is a breakdown in detail of a larger picture. I am an econ major so I tend to know the basic difference between micro and macro. You will not see macro-evolution in your lifetime as it takes thousands/millions of years. However, "Lucy" as we have previously discussed, as well as many other examples, is proof of major change. If you look at fossil remains in the earths crust they show the gradual demise of certain types of animal, and the start of new.
Whats even stranger (not that this statement holds any truth) but there has never been any evidence of a divine creator. In fact, the evidence against bible doctrine is substantial. So substantial in fact, that Atheists/Agnistics/Muslims/Hindus/Any other religion besides Christianity reject the Christian bible completely.
If you think about it Christians/Catholics make up 2bn people. The other 4.5 bn people completely reject the teachings of Christianity. Are these people going to hell? Or might you be off to the Islamic hell? just wondering?
Acctually lucy left palantologists confused because recent study's show lucy may not be human after all. In the June, 11, 1990 issue of time magazine publushed a article explaining how "Geologist show how carbon dating can be way off".
This is because evolution is nothing more than a fairy tale for grown ups like i said please present proof that evolution exists you can go to Intelligent Design versus Evolution and if you can present proof you will win 10,000 dolars become famouse and proov GOD to be false.
LOL no we havent evolved and what you just explained is "microevolution" which is adaptation with in a species but it is way different then evolution evolution is when one form of species transforms into another species and microevolution is adaptation within a species wich has not changed so the scorpion having eye's is not evolution but it is microevolution the scorpion is still a scorpion not some different species from when it was born and this goes for every thing else we and animals adapt to our enviroment but we do not become a different species.
He also said there needs to be hundreds of transitional forms of animals to proove evolution and ya know what not even one has been found in the history of the earth and he also said if it hasint been prooven with in a hundred years then his theory should be discarded and it's been past a hundred years and not one has been fount so you ponder that.THNX
Oh and this reply is for solidsquid also.
Evolution does not disprove the existence of a deity. What it might do is disprove a particular centralized organization's platform, and disempower that particular organization, whether it be Christianity, Islam, or more than one.
You know, I hear a lot of Christian arguments about the inaccuracies of carbon dating. The problem is that we only use carbon dating for a certain period. There are numerous other radioactive isotopes that have half-lives much longer than carbon. We like to use carbon because all living things have carbon in them. However, there are certain points in which the amount of carbon needed to test will either result in an inaccurate test or become inconclusive. I have only heard the argument for carbon dating, not any other method of radioactive dating. The best I could pull up from the internet is carbon dating is really inefficient after 50,000 years. Also, it must be mentioned, that a lot of scientists feel that carbon dating will not be as effective or accurate in the future due to the burning of so many fossil fuels and the dilution of the carbon-14 tables.
Also, I never hear about the study of sediments, or glaciers in regards to how old the earth is. They too are yet another example of how to date our ancient earth. Once again, scientists like to back up their research with other reputable research. We don't just make wild claims and hope them to be true. It's all about backing up everything with supporting evidence. Not like some of these sites I've read.
Oh one other thing: here's a list of different methods used to determine the age of the earth using 12 different methods. I have never seen more than one assumption made by a Christian to support the age of the earth. Anyway here's the chart.
Some of the oldest rocks on earth are found in Western Greenland. Because of their great age, they have been especially well studied. The table below gives the ages, in billions of years, from twelve different studies using five different techniques on one particular rock formation in Western Greenland, the Amitsoq gneisses.
Technique Age Range (billion years)
uranium-lead 3.60±0.05
lead-lead 3.56±0.10
lead-lead 3.74±0.12
lead-lead 3.62±0.13
rubidium-strontium 3.64±0.06
rubidium-strontium 3.62±0.14
rubidium-strontium 3.67±0.09
rubidium-strontium 3.66±0.10
rubidium-strontium 3.61±0.22
rubidium-strontium 3.56±0.14
lutetium-hafnium 3.55±0.22
samarium-neodymium 3.56±0.20
Your right "Lucy" was not Human.. she was an ancestor. Carbon dating is far more conclusive than bible math.
The proof is substantial and unequivecal. Rejecting DNA evidence is like rejecting that the sun is a star. I'm not going to some religious website for unfactual information. Like I said earlier, the overwhelming majority of the first world aren't even in debate over evolution.
Micro is a breakdown in detail of a larger picture. I am an econ major so I tend to know the basic difference between micro and macro. You will not see macro-evolution in your lifetime as it takes thousands/millions of years. However, "Lucy" as we have previously discussed, as well as many other examples, is proof of major change. If you look at fossil remains in the earths crust they show the gradual demise of certain types of animal, and the start of new.
Whats even stranger (not that this statement holds any truth) but there has never been any evidence of a divine creator. In fact, the evidence against bible doctrine is substantial. So substantial in fact, that Atheists/Agnistics/Muslims/Hindus/Any other religion besides Christianity reject the Christian bible completely.
If you think about it Christians/Catholics make up 2bn people. The other 4.5 bn people completely reject the teachings of Christianity. Are these people going to hell? Or might you be off to the Islamic hell? just wondering?
Ok if evolution is so real then please present real proof of a transitional fourm that evolved from another spiecies now you agree lucy was not Human so then we never evolved from a type of spiecies from her other wise more transitional fourms would have been found that came from her or her spiecies like darawin said there must be hundreds of transitional fourms found to proov evolution and not ONE HAS BEEN FOUND. As for no proof for GOD acctually there is a substance called dark matter which is what keeps this world going and functioning properly and scientist cant's seem to find it or get it to be analyized by computer but they know it is there so this must be proof of GOD. It's funny how you say science will never proov the existence of GOD and your wright which prooves the BIBLE to be right.
1Corinthians 1:18-31
18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
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.
Nobody is sensing any irony at all in some of these "Christian" posts that keep talking about "love," immediately followed by some type of threat or insult? If you people are so sure of yourselves...why do you need to threaten us with hell just for having alternate evidence? I've seen a lot of nastiness from non-Christians, it is true, and have been nasty myself...but one thing I've never said was "Well, once we're dead, and you're suffering and I'm not, then you'll see". Or, to put the scientific version of the Christian threat out there, maybe something like, "Well, just wait until you get cancer. Since you were so cynical about and judgemental of science all your life, hopefully, doctors will be angry at you and refuse to cure you. And you'll die in horrible pain and suffering." But there is NO hesitation before saying, "Just wait until you're dead. Since you were so cynical about God, you'll suffer and suffer." (smacking forehead) "Love" my *ss.