-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
If a person doesn't believe in the bible then you cant use the bible as evidence to prove something in the bible. Bible predicts Jesus will do these things... bible says later that jesus did these things. that
Doesn't prove anything at all.
As for the Isreal question, I am going to need more information. What does the prophecy say? When was this prophecy written and did it specify when these events would occur?
Doesn't prove anything at all.
As for the Isreal question, I am going to need more information. What does the prophecy say? When was this prophecy written and did it specify when these events would occur?
K
Well I don't believe in evolution, so you can't use its theories on some one who doesn't believe in it. That is a cop out. I can say that I don't believe that the switch will turn on the light bulb.These prophecies were written in the book of Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and many more. Thousands of years before it happened.
I also would keep an eye on Syria. There is a lot written about them too.
I also would keep an eye on Syria. There is a lot written about them too.
K
I would also add, that when I say keep an on Syria, that includes Iran, Iraq, and all the territories that were split by the four generals of Greece after alexander the great died. Not all of them, but the general ( can't think of his name at the moment) that took the fourth part that included Syria. This also can be found in Isaiah, and Zechariah, as well as others. Not one word of God has fallen and it will not fall. Not saying that its going to happen now, but little Syria has defied the most powerful country in the world twice. Don't cross the red line, they did, don't use chemical weapons, they did and with out any recourse thus far.
K
Another note about Israel. Prior to 1948 the Jewish people had no military, they were living in other countries. They had no political clout. They were persecuted on ever level. Even the KKK hated them. Millions were killed by Hitler. Yet they are here before our eyes.
In contrast, the Palestinians are a people without a country. Yet, the military power, they have political clout. They remain a people without a country. They will not and cannot take Israel down. They will come close by the antichrist which is the same spirit that atheist have. But, God promised David that he would have a son to sit on the throne of Israel forever. For close to 1 thousand 500 years, there was no Israel. Now there is. Also what was a desert (Israel) is changing to a land of milk and honey. I believe in Zechariah, It says that the sower shall overtake the reaper. Right now in Israel, the harvest tractors are followed by the planting tractors and producing food year round. No other country can say that.
In contrast, the Palestinians are a people without a country. Yet, the military power, they have political clout. They remain a people without a country. They will not and cannot take Israel down. They will come close by the antichrist which is the same spirit that atheist have. But, God promised David that he would have a son to sit on the throne of Israel forever. For close to 1 thousand 500 years, there was no Israel. Now there is. Also what was a desert (Israel) is changing to a land of milk and honey. I believe in Zechariah, It says that the sower shall overtake the reaper. Right now in Israel, the harvest tractors are followed by the planting tractors and producing food year round. No other country can say that.
T
I should point out, just for correctness, Israel is not a country that economically speaking should be a food producer considering the quality of it's arable land, however the Jews and others eager to fulfill the prophecy have put effort into it. So it as least an impressive feat of religious willpower.
M
Actually, it's quite easy to deny what evolutionists tell you about what definetely happened billions of years ago.
15 questions for evolutionists
15 questions for evolutionists
Sadly, it seems every debate about atheism turns into a debate over evolution, as if they were the same thing. It's true that most atheists believe in evolution because the evidence is there and we atheists don't have a motive for rejecting it. But even if we could be convinced that evolution was false, that wouldn't make creationism true... that's a false dichotomy. And even if we granted that creationism was true, that still wouldn't prove your god existed. So these arguments over evolution are so pointless.
Again, we have this situation where rhetorical questions are posed in the hopes that, if answers aren't given, then we should just shrug our shoulders and ignore the evidence that we have for the sake of a theory without evidence (creationism). But if you really care about the answers (I contend that you don't), here are my own...
1. How did life originate? Evolution doesn't even try to answer this question. It's like if somebody described to you the orbits of the planets in our solar system and you reply "Oh yeah? If that's true then you must know how their orbits started!". It's a different subject.
2. How did DNA code originate? Again, it's a different subject, but at least this one has some good answers.
3. How could mutations... create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living thing? How does a language like Latin spawn such huge differences, becoming the variety of "romance" languages that it did? A little bit at a time, over a long period of time.
4. Why is natural selection... taught as evolution? Like the last question, the way that this is posed attempts to inject false premises into the argument that scientists wouldn't agree with. The answer to this one is that natural selection (along with artificial selection) is the driving process behind evolution. The arguments made after the question again assumes (like questions #1 and #2) that evolution answers the question of where life came from... it doesn't. Evolution describes why life on this planet is diverse.
5. How did new biochemical pathways... originate? This is suggestive of Michael Behe's ideas that complicated things don't have structural support as they are being constructed, but we have countless examples that biologists have discovered. For a non-biological example, one could ask "How did Michaelangelo paint the Sistene Chapel ceiling? Could he fly?" Of course not -- he used scaffolding, which was later removed when it became unnecessary. Similar structures in organisms disappear over time, and our hindsight makes it difficult to believe that they were ever there because we don't see a need for them *now*.
6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? The evidence doesn't demonstrate a designer. If it did, the current theory would include one. We have examples of things in nature that look designed but aren't, which means that the appearance of design isn't enough to prove a designer -- we ought to be skeptical and instead wait until we have evidence of a designer before positing that theory.
... I'm on my lunch break, and it looks like I just don't have time to get around to all of these (at least right now). But my main point is that just because you have a question that scientists can't answer (assuming that they actually can't answer it) doesn't mean that your answer is any better. Most of these questions have a false premise behind them (such as questions 1, 2, 7, and 8 that all misunderstand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis) or have claims inserted into them that scientists haven't claimed. I do want to address the one good question among them though, which is #14...
14. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? Again, this makes the misunderstanding that evolution describes the beginning of life (it doesn't). But it also makes the assumption that evolution has stopped happening, which is not true nor has it ever been true. I can give you a real-life example of evolution in humans...
My daughter's mother had a bad hip for childbearing... the opening for escape was too small. My daughter had to be born via C-section, just like her mother. The fact that more and more children are being born through C-sections is evidence of evolution. There was a time when, if a child couldn't be born naturally, that child couldn't be born at all and thus would have no opportunity to pass on his or her genes (in other words, they were "selected" out of the gene pool). However, a change in our environment (the introduction of C-section surgery) allowed these children to be born, pass on their genes, and thus make such genetic variation a part of the human gene pool. It's not as if these people who can't birth naturally are "better" than others (in fact, you could argue that their genes are worse for survival) but rather they fit the environment to which they entered. Small changes in the environment cause small changes in gene pools, and these become part of what it means to be "human" (since we are made up of a variety, and any one characteristic is merely a piece of a bell curve rather than a universal characteristic... if such a characteristic were so different, that person or persons would no longer be considered "human"). Most of denial of evolution stems from a misunderstanding of what evolution is.
1. How did life originate? Evolution doesn't even try to answer this question. It's like if somebody described to you the orbits of the planets in our solar system and you reply "Oh yeah? If that's true then you must know how their orbits started!". It's a different subject.
2. How did DNA code originate? Again, it's a different subject, but at least this one has some good answers.
3. How could mutations... create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living thing? How does a language like Latin spawn such huge differences, becoming the variety of "romance" languages that it did? A little bit at a time, over a long period of time.
4. Why is natural selection... taught as evolution? Like the last question, the way that this is posed attempts to inject false premises into the argument that scientists wouldn't agree with. The answer to this one is that natural selection (along with artificial selection) is the driving process behind evolution. The arguments made after the question again assumes (like questions #1 and #2) that evolution answers the question of where life came from... it doesn't. Evolution describes why life on this planet is diverse.
5. How did new biochemical pathways... originate? This is suggestive of Michael Behe's ideas that complicated things don't have structural support as they are being constructed, but we have countless examples that biologists have discovered. For a non-biological example, one could ask "How did Michaelangelo paint the Sistene Chapel ceiling? Could he fly?" Of course not -- he used scaffolding, which was later removed when it became unnecessary. Similar structures in organisms disappear over time, and our hindsight makes it difficult to believe that they were ever there because we don't see a need for them *now*.
6. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? The evidence doesn't demonstrate a designer. If it did, the current theory would include one. We have examples of things in nature that look designed but aren't, which means that the appearance of design isn't enough to prove a designer -- we ought to be skeptical and instead wait until we have evidence of a designer before positing that theory.
... I'm on my lunch break, and it looks like I just don't have time to get around to all of these (at least right now). But my main point is that just because you have a question that scientists can't answer (assuming that they actually can't answer it) doesn't mean that your answer is any better. Most of these questions have a false premise behind them (such as questions 1, 2, 7, and 8 that all misunderstand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis) or have claims inserted into them that scientists haven't claimed. I do want to address the one good question among them though, which is #14...
14. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? Again, this makes the misunderstanding that evolution describes the beginning of life (it doesn't). But it also makes the assumption that evolution has stopped happening, which is not true nor has it ever been true. I can give you a real-life example of evolution in humans...
My daughter's mother had a bad hip for childbearing... the opening for escape was too small. My daughter had to be born via C-section, just like her mother. The fact that more and more children are being born through C-sections is evidence of evolution. There was a time when, if a child couldn't be born naturally, that child couldn't be born at all and thus would have no opportunity to pass on his or her genes (in other words, they were "selected" out of the gene pool). However, a change in our environment (the introduction of C-section surgery) allowed these children to be born, pass on their genes, and thus make such genetic variation a part of the human gene pool. It's not as if these people who can't birth naturally are "better" than others (in fact, you could argue that their genes are worse for survival) but rather they fit the environment to which they entered. Small changes in the environment cause small changes in gene pools, and these become part of what it means to be "human" (since we are made up of a variety, and any one characteristic is merely a piece of a bell curve rather than a universal characteristic... if such a characteristic were so different, that person or persons would no longer be considered "human"). Most of denial of evolution stems from a misunderstanding of what evolution is.